Reference no: EM132392402

ENGG1500 Engineering Thermodynamics

Case Study - Sustainability Measures for Energy Systems

Introduction

Energy systems are responsible for tremendous increases in standards of living (on average) for much of the world. However, it is clear that current usage and generation technology mix is not sustainable. This is especially true if you consider increasing the standard of living in other parts of the world to levels enjoyed in countries like Australia.

We need more energy and lower carbon emissions. To achieve this we need to understand, define, and quantify, the “whole of system” impacts on sustainability. There are many elements to sustainability and many elements to a “whole of system” analysis. A comprehensive sustainability analysis of something as complex as an energy system requires the involvement of many disciplines: engineers, environmental
scientist, economists, sociologists, etc. etc.

In this assignment, you will present in a clear and engaging manner the carbon intensity, and associated impacts, (deleted, not required) of two different large scale stationary electricity generation options:

1. HELE technology based coal power station.

2. PV solar using pumped hydro storage.

To do this, you will investigate for both:

• the energy flows and losses to deliver electricity to customers (homes and businesses).

• the carbon intensity of the options, including what is required for feeds and construction.

Pair or Individual

This assignment can be completed in a self-formed pair or as an individual. If completing as a pair:

• Your partner must be in your tutorial.

• Once you agree to work as a pair, you will receive the same mark. There is no peer assessment.

Report Format

You are producing a short informative summary of the similarities and differences between the carbon intensity (quantitative) of the two energy systems. This will be done using systems analysis, thermodynamics, and information/data available from reputable sources. The aim is that a fellow engineer can read your summary in 5 minutes, understand the key differences, and believe that what you have presented is
reputable.

You summary should be:

• 4 pages or less (excluding title page, references and appendices), and

• less than 800 words (excluding title page, references and appendices)

To achieve this, you will need to carefully select the figures and tables you use and your writing will need to be short and to the point.
You will submit your summary as a PDF in Turnitin on Blackboard. All work should be possible to do in the Microsoft Office suite of products or the equivalent on macOS, Linux etc. Recommendations on software are:

• Summary: Word

• Plots: Excel

• Flow Diagrams: Word or Power Point (can paste diagrams from other software into Word using screen shots)

Other details: For normal text, use 12 pt Calibri or Times New Roman font (or similar like Arial, Helvetica, etc), 1.1 paragraph spacing, and justified format. For tables and cations for tables and figures, use a 2pt smaller font (e.g. 10 pt Calibri). For referencing, use Harvard-style referencing (minor variances like APA or Chicago is fine too). Following correct referencing protocols is an important requirement of this assignment.

Report Sections

Title page

The title page must include: Title, date, student details, and a related image to give some visual impact (this must be referenced).

Introduction

A short introduction on why this type of analysis is important, what was done, and the key conclusions. This should be not more than 200 words. Yes that is brief!

Energy Flows

A description and diagrammatic representation of the major energy flows. The purpose is to clearly show the amount, and types, of energy transfers required to deliver 1 MWh of electricity to customers (households and businesses). You should end up with a number for the amount of the primary energy flow required for eth different systems (i.e. amount of coal, gross solar load for panels, and amount of water in pumped hydro). The types of energy flows to be considered are:

• Mass flow

• Shaft work

• Electrical work (may need to be differentiated into DC and AC)

• Heat

The sub-systems to be considered as part of the analysis are:

• Generation of heat for power production (i.e burn coal). (added for clarification)

• Generation of primary work. This may be shaft or electrical work depending on the type of system.

• Consumption of primary work. This may be shaft or electrical work depending on the type of system.

• Conversion of primary work to/from electrical work to/from the grid (if applicable).

• Grid distribution.

The energy flows should be determined from typical efficiencies (e.g. conversion of shaft work to electrical work) and energy densities (e.g. heating value of thermal coal or energy intensity of solar). These numbers should be tabulated in an appendix and referenced from reputable sources. Likely you will see several values for the same thing. Pick what seems most feasible for a system built in 5 years’ time and include an indication of range in your diagrams.

You can present this analysis as one or several flow diagrams and/or with plots. It is up to how you feel it is best to convey the data. Some things to note:

• Do not go below the overall system level. For the power cycle in HELE plant, represent this as one system. Do not break the system down to its components (boiler, turbine etc). Simply consider the heat that enters and the net work and heat that leaves the power cycle in the HELE plant overall. (added for clarification)

• Compared to the HELE option (which can be assumed to have typical grid losses), the grid system losses are assumed to be 10 % higher for solar for electricity that goes directly to the consumer and 20% higher for the electricity that passes through the hydroelectric. This accounts for addition distance travelled by eth electricity. (changed to match carbon intensity section)

• Draw any diagram by hand first to see what looks good in terms of systems and flows. This is the fastest way to prototype you diagrams. Once you have a good idea of what you want to do, then start in Word/Power Point/ etc.

Carbon Intensity

A description and diagrammatic representation of the average lifetime carbon intensity of the two options. The carbon intensity should be presented on the basis of CO2e per MWh. The carbon intensity should be broken down into following (not all are applicable to each option):

• Direct CO2e emissions from primary energy generation (e.g. burning coal).

• Embedded CO2e emissions from any fuel used (e.g. how much CO2e is generated in producing the coal used).

• Embedded CO2e emissions from the manufactured assets. This needs to be broken down into:

o Generation facility(ies).

o Grid.

• Anything else from operations that generates significant CO2e

• Note: Not all of these categories are important for each option.

The purpose is to try and make a comparison of how much CO2e is emitted for the two options. The CO2e should be determined from typical CO2e for primary energy flows (e.g. thermal coal) and facilities (e.g. per MW or square metre of solar panels). These numbers should be tabulated in an appendix and referenced from reputable sources. Likely you will see several values for the same thing. Select what seems most feasible for a system built in 5 years’ time but give some sense of the spread of reputable data.

You can present this analysis as one or several flow diagrams and/or with plots. It is up to how you feel it is best to convey the data. Some things to note:

• The assets have an operating life of 20 years.

• Energy from solar requires an additional grid infrastructure about 10 % of the size of the grid infrastructure associated with delivery of electricity straight from the HELE site. This is due to the solar being more distributed vs a single large power station.

• The hydro storage requires an additional grid infrastructure about 10 % of the size of the grid infrastructure associated with delivery of electricity straight from the HELE site. That is, electricity from solar via pumped hydro requires 20 % more grid infrastructure than the single site coal option.

• Hydro storage site is new pumped storage capacity that comes from new small dam(s). The embedded emissions associated with this are the most likely to be very uncertain as it is very site and scale dependent.