# Presentation: 666607

## Perspectives on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Payback Ratiosfor Fusion Power

- Paul J. Meier
- Gerald L. Kulcinski

- Fusion Technology Institute
- University of Wisconsin
- Madison WI

## Objective

**Calculate the Energy Payback Ratio (EPR) for Coal, Natural Gas, Fission, Wind, and DT Fusion Electrical Power Plants**
- 	Perform “Birth to Death Analysis”

**Calculate the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With Coal, Natural Gas, Fission, Wind, and DT Fusion Electrical Power Plants**
- 	Include all fossil input to fuel and structural materials procurement, operations, and decommissioning

**Assess How the U.S. Electrical Generating System Can “Do Its Share” to Meet the 1997 Kyoto Limits**
- 	Consider the 1990 minus 7% case

## The Energy Investment in a Power Plant is Comprised of Many Components

## Calculation of Energy Payback Ratio (EPR)

- where** ****	****E****n,L**= the electrical energy produced over a given plant lifetime, L.
- 		**E****mat,L**= total energy invested in materials used over plant lifetime, L.
- 		**E****con,L**= total energy invested in construction for a plant with lifetime, L.
- 		**E****op,L**= total energy invested in operating the plant over the lifetime L.
- 		**E****dec,L**= total energy invested in decommissioning a plant after it has 		     operated for a lifetime, L.

## Slide 5

## The Energy Payback Ratio Varies by a Factor of Nearly 6 Between Natural Gas and Fusion Power

**The Energy Payback Ratio Varies by a Factor of Nearly 6 Between Natural Gas and Fusion Power**

**Energy Payback Ratio**

## Slide 7

## Relative to the CO2 Emissions of Coal, Those from Nuclear and Wind Technologies are Low, But Not Zero

**Relative to the CO****2**** Emissions of Coal, Those from Nuclear and Wind Technologies are Low, But Not Zero**

**Tonnes CO****2****/GW****e****h**

## U.S. Electricity Generation-Fuel Contribution

**51%**

## U.S. Electricity Generation Contribution

**19%**

- % Coal Generated Electricity

- 0%

- 40%

- 60%

- 80%

- 100%

- 20%

- 1999

**51%**

## U.S. Electricity Generation Contribution

**30%**

- 1999

**19%**

**51%**

- % Coal Generated Electricity

- 0%

- 40%

- 60%

- 80%

- 100%

- 20%

- % Natural Gas & Oil Generated Electricity

- 0%

- 60%

- 40%

- 20%

- 80%

- 100%

## Relative CO2-Equivalent Emissions

- Using this mixture of technologies, 1999 U.S. Electricity Production of
- _3.7 million GW__e__h_,
- resulted in GHG emissions of about
- _2.2 billion metric tonnes_.

- If the following “mixtures” could have been used to the produce the same amount of electricity, they would have emitted the same amount of CO2 equivalent.

- % Nuclear & Renewable Generated Electricity

- % Coal Generated Electricity

- 0%

- 40%

- 60%

- 80%

- 100%

- 20%

- % Natural Gas & Oil Generated Electricity

- 0%

- 60%

- 40%

- 20%

- 80%

- 100%

- 0%

- 20%

- 100%

- 80%

- 60%

- 40%

- Relative CO2-Equivalent Emissions

- Mixtures to the RIGHT of the line, would result in fewer emissions, while mixtures to the LEFT of the line would result in higher emissions.

## Relative CO2-Equivalent Emissions

- % Nuclear & Renewable Generated Electricity

- % Coal Generated Electricity

- 0%

- 40%

- 60%

- 80%

- 100%

- 20%

- % Natural Gas & Oil Generated Electricity

- 0%

- 60%

- 40%

- 20%

- 80%

- 100%

- 0%

- 20%

- 100%

- 80%

- 60%

- 40%

- Relative CO2-Equivalent Emissions

- Assuming any amount of electricity production, we can plot a line showing the mixtures which will meet “Target Emission Levels”.

- As shown previously, this line represents a constant emission line for the current electricity consumption levels.

- However, if we want to _**maintain the same electricity consumption**_, but _**decrease emissions**_ to 7% below 1990 levels (Kyoto Protocol), the constant emission line would shift to the right. Anything to the right of this line, would be below the target emission level.

- If we wanted to  _**increase electricity consumption **_to projected 2010 levels    (4.2 million GWeh), and still _**decrease emissions**_ to the Kyoto target, the constant emission line would shift further to the right.

## 2010

**2010**
**4.2 x 10****6**** GW****e****h**

**2050**
** ****7.2 x 10****6**** GW****e****h**

## Nuclear/Renewable

- *Future Electrical Growth assumed 1.3%
- **Target assumes that the U.S. electric industry meets its proportion of the Kyoto commitment by reducing emissions to 7% below its 1990 baseline.

**Gas/Oil Contribution = 0%**

**Coal Contribution = 0%**

**Nuclear/Renewable**

**Actual % N/R**

## Total U.S. Generation

**Total U.S. Generation**

**Gas/Oil Contribution = 0%**

**Coal Contribution = 0%**

- *Future Electrical Growth assumed 1.3%
- **Target assumes that the U.S. electric industry meets its proportion of the Kyoto commitment by reducing emissions to 7% below its 1990 baseline.

- Actual N/R

## What If the Level of Electricity from Fission and Hydro Sources Remain Constant in the 2000-2050 Time Period?

- Assume: New fission and hydro replace retired fission and hydro in the 2000-2050 period.
- • **The electricity generated from other low GHG emitting sources (wind, solar, fusion, etc.) must increase dramatically after 2010.**

## Fission/Hydro

- Implies potential for any nuclear or renewable technology other than fission or hydroelectricity.
- Future Electrical Growth assumed 1.3%
- Target assumes that the U.S. electric industry meets its proportion of the Kyoto commitment by reducing emissions to 7% below its 1990 baseline.

**Fission/Hydro**

**Gas/Oil Contribution = 0%**

**Coal Contribution = 0%**

**Total U.S. Generation**

## Conclusions

**The “birth to death” analysis of energy payback ratios (EPR’s) for electrical generating plants reveals that DT fusion plants have one of the highest EPR values at 24.**
- 	This compares to 4-23 for conventional (natural gas, coal, fission, and wind) power stations.
**The greenhouse gas emission rate per GW****e****h for DT fusion plants is low at 11 tonnes CO****2****/Gw****e****h.**
- 	This compares favorably to 14-15 for wind and fission respectively and 464 to 974 for natural gas and coal respectively.

## Conclusions (cont.)

**Adherence to the 1997 Kyoto agreement’s emission rate (1990 minus 7%) and 1.3%/y electricity demand growth rate will require quadrupling the nuclear/renewable capacity in the United State over the next 50 years (not considering replacements).**
- 	Factoring in replacements, quadrupling requires approximately 600 new 1,000 MWe low-greenhouse gas emitting electricity-generating power plants in the U.S. over the next 50 years.

## Slide 21

## Slide 22

## Gas/Oil Contribution = 0%

**Gas/Oil Contribution = 0%**

**Coal Contribution = 0%**

**Fission/Hydro**

- Implies potential for any nuclear or renewable technology other than fission or hydroelectricity.
- Future Electrical Growth assumed 1.3%
- Target assumes that the U.S. electric industry meets its proportion of the Kyoto commitment by reducing emissions to 7% below its 1990 baseline.

## Slide 24