|
Gamma, Dr. Egghead's trusty dog, recently overheard a group of high-powered energy planners talking about how to reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere while meeting energy needs. After some discussion, the planners agreed that despite the added costs of nuclear power, it was the best solution to address climate change concerns because it was a carbon-free technology. But Gamma saw a problem with this line of thought and burst into the room to address the startled group.
Unfortunately, Gamma has no opposable thumbs and couldn't write his ideas on the board, so he's asked if you could finish the calculations for him. Here's what he told the group: 1. Assume a typical coal-fired power plant is rated at 1,000 Megawatts of electrical power (1,000 MWe). If it operates for 6,600 hours out of the year, it would produce _______ Megawatt-hours of electric energy (MWhe) over one year. If this coal plant emits 0.37 metric tons of carbon per Megawatt-hour of electricity generated, the total annual carbon emissions would be ________ metric tons. 2. A typical natural gas combined-cycle plant operating at the same capacity for the same number of hours per year emits 0.12 metric tons of carbon per Megawatt-hour, for a total of _________ metric tons of carbon emissions per year. 3. Suppose that two natural gas plants could be built for the same overall cost as building one nuclear plant.* How many metric tons of carbon emissions are avoided in each scenario? (*Note from Gamma: The actual number of combined-cycled natural gas plants that could be build for the same cost as nuclear depends both on the fuel price of natural gas and the capital costs for nuclear power. Since these two factors can vary widely, actual carbon reductions can also vary. See Table on costs.)
Carbon reductions in scenario ____ are greater than those in scenario _____ by ________%.
|
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Comments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer@ieer.org
Takoma Park, Maryland, USA
March, 1998