figure 17-1 page 350
DESCRIPTION
3 Automatic safety devices that shut down the reactor when water and steam levels fall below normal and turbine stops were shut off because engineers didn’t want systems to “spoil” experiment. Figure 17-1 Page 350. 2 Almost all control rods were removed from the - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1Slide 1
Steamgenerator
Waterpumps
Crane formoving fuel rods
TurbinesTurbines
ReactorReactor
Coolingpond
Coolingpond
5 Reactor power output was lowered too much, making it too difficult to control.
4 Additional water pump to cool reactor was turned on. But with low power output and extra drain on system, water didn’t actually reach reactor.
3 Automatic safety devices that shut down the reactor when water and steam levels fall below normal and turbine stops were shut off because engineers didn’t want systems to “spoil” experiment.
Radiation shieldsRadiation shields
2 Almost all control rods were removed from the core during experiment.
1 Emergency cooling system was turned off to conduct an experiment.
Figure 17-1Page 350
Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2Slide 2
Mined coal
Pipeline
Pump
Oil well
Gas well
Oil storage
CoalOil and Natural Gas Geothermal EnergyHot waterstorage
Contourstrip mining
PipelineDrillingtower
Magma
Hot rock
Natural gasOil
Impervious rock
Water Water
Oil drillingplatformon legs
Floating oil drillingplatform
Valves
Undergroundcoal mine
Water is heatedand brought upas dry steam or
wet steam
Waterpenetratesdownthroughtherock
Area stripmining
Geothermalpower plant
Coal seam
Figure 17-2Page 351
Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3Slide 3
Figure 17-3aPage 352World
Nuclear power6%
Hydropower, geothermal,solar, wind
6%
NaturalGas22%
Biomass10%
Oil33%
Coal23%
Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4Slide 4
Figure 17-3bPage 352
United States
Nuclear power8%
Hydropowergeothermalsolar, wind
3%
Biomass3%
NaturalGas24%
Oil39%
Coal23%
Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5Slide 5
Figure 17-4Page 352
En
e rg
y co
ns u
mp
tio
n (
qu
adri
l lio
n B
t us ) 60
50
30
20
10
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
40
2020
History ProjectionsOil
Natural gas
Coal
Nuclear
Nonhydrorenewable
Renewable hydro
0
Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6Slide 6
Figure 17-5Page 353
En
e rg
y co
ns u
mp
tio
n (
qu
adri
l lio
n B
t us ) 60
50
30
20
10
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
40
2020
History ProjectionsOil
Natural gas
Coal
Nuclear
Nonhydrorenewable
Renewable hydro
0
Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7Slide 7
Year
210020251950187518000
20
40
60
80
100C
ontr
ibut
ion
to t
otal
ene
rgy
cons
umpt
ion
(per
cent
)Wood
Coal
Oil
Nuclear
HydrogenSolar
Natural gas
Figure 17-6Page 353
Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8Slide 8
Space Heating
Passive solar
Natural gas
Oil
Active solar
Coal gasification
Electric resistance heating(coal-fired plant)
Electric resistance heating (natural-gas-fired plant)
Electric resistance heating(nuclear plant) 0.3
0.4
0.4
1.5
1.9
4.5
4.9
5.8
Figure 17-7aPage 354
Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9Slide 9
High-Temperature Industrial Heat
Surface-mined coalUnderground-mined coalNatural gasOilCoal gasificationDirect solar (highlyconcentrated by mirrors, heliostats, or other devices)
0.91.5
4.74.9
25.8
28.2
Figure 17-7bPage 354
Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10Slide 10
Transportation
Natural gas
Gasoline (refined crude oil)
Biofuel (ethyl alcohol)
Coal liquefaction
Oil shale 1.2
1.4
1.9
4.1
4.9
Figure 17-7cPage 354
Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11Slide 11
Diesel oil
Asphalt
Greaseand wax
Naphtha
Heating oil
Aviation fuel
Gasoline
Gases
Furnace
Heatedcrude oil
Figure 17-8Page 356
Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12Slide 12MEXICO
UNITED STATES
CANADA
PacificOcean
AtlanticOcean
GrandBanks
Gulf ofAlaska
Valdez
ALASKABeaufort
Sea
Prudhoe Bay
ArcticOcean
Coal
Gas
Oil
High potentialareas
Prince WilliamSound
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Trans Alaskaoil pipeline
Figure 17-9Page 357
Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13Slide 13
Figure 17-10Page 357
TEXAS
LOUISIANA
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA GEORGIA
FLORIDA
GULF OF MEXICOActive drilling sites
Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14Slide 14
Figure 17-11Page 358
Oil
pr i
ce p
er b
arre
l70
60
40
30
20
1950 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
50
2010
(1997 dollars)
10
19600
Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15Slide 15
Figure 17-12Page 358
Oil
(mill
ion
bar
rels
pe r
da y
)
30
25
15
10
5
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
20
2020
0
History Projections
Consumption
Domestic supply
Net imports
Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16Slide 16
Figure 17-13Page 359
Oil
(m
illi
on
bar
rels
per
day
)120
100
60
40
20
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
80
20200
History Projections
Developed
Total
Developing
Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17Slide 17
Could increase U.S oil andnatural gas supplies
Could reduce oil importsslightly
Would bring jobs and oilrevenue to Alaska
May lower oil prices slightly
Oil companies havedeveloped Alaskan Oil fields withoutsignificant harm
New drilling techniqueswill leave little environ-mental impact Figure 17-14
Page 360
Trade-OffsDrilling for Oil and Natural Gas
In Alaska’s ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge
Only 19% of finding oil equal to what U.S. consumes in 7-24 months
Too little potential oil to significantlyreduce oil imports
Costs too high and potential oil supply toolittle to lower energy prices
Studies show considerable oil spills andother environmental damage fromAlaskan oil fields
Potential degradation of refuge notworth the risk
Unnecessary if improved slant drillingallows oil to be drilled fromoutside the refuge
Advantages Disadvantages
Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18Slide 18
Ample supply for 42-93 years
Low cost (with huge subsidies)
High net energy yield
Easily transported withinand between countries
Low land use
Technology is welldeveloped
Efficient distribution system
Advantages
Figure 17-15Page 360
Trade-Offs
Conventional Oil
Disadvantages
Need to find substitute within 50 years
Artifically low price encourages waste and discourages search for alternative
Air pollution when burned
Releases CO2 when burned
Moderate water pollution
Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19Slide 19
Nuclear power
Natural gas
Oil sand
Coal
Synthetic oil andgas produced
from coal
Coal-firedelectricity
17%
58%
92%
100%
150%
286%
Figure 17-16Page 361
Oil86%
Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20Slide 20
Figure 17-17Page 361
Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21Slide 21
Advantages Disadvantages
Moderate cost (oil sand)
Large potential supplies, especially oil sandsin Canada
High cost (oil shale)
Low net energy yield
Large amount of water needed for processing
Severe land disruption from surface mining
Water pollution from mining residues
Air pollution when burned
CO2 emissionswhen burned
Easily transported within and between countries
Efficient distributionsystem in place
Figure 17-18Page 362
Trade-OffsHeavy Oils from
Oil Shale and Oil Sand
Technology is well developed
Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22Slide 22
Good fuel for fuel cells and gas turbines
Low land use
Easily transported by pipeline
Moderate environmental impact
Lower CO2 emissions thanother fossil fuels
Less air pollution than other fossil fuels
Low cost (with huge subsidies)
High net energy yield
Ample supplies (125 years)
Sometimes burned off andwasted at wells because of lowprice
Shipped across ocean as highlyexplosive LNG
Methane (a greenhouse gas) can leak from pipelines
Releases CO2 when burned
Nonrenewable resource
Difficult to transfer from one countryto another
Requires pipelinesFigure 17-19
Page 363
Advantages
Trade-OffsConventional Natural Gas
Disadvantages
Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23Slide 23
Increasing moisture content
Increasing heat and carbon content
Peat(not a coal)
Lignite(brown coal)
Bituminous Coal(soft coal)
Anthracite(hard coal)
Heat
Pressure Pressure Pressure
Heat Heat
Partially decayedplant matter in swampsand bogs; low heatcontent
Low heat content;low sulfur content;limited supplies inmost areas
Extensively usedas a fuel becauseof its high heat contentand large supplies;normally has ahigh sulfur content
Highly desirable fuelbecause of its highheat content andlow sulfur content;supplies are limitedin most areas
Figure 17-20Page 364
Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24Slide 24
Low cost (with huge subsidies)
High net energy yield
Ample supplies(225–900 years)
Releases radioactive particles and mercury into air
High CO2 emissions when burned
Severe threat to human health
High land use (including mining)
Severe land disturbance, air pollution, and water pollution
Very high environmental impact
Mining and combustiontechnology well-developed
Air pollution can be reduced with improvedtechnology (but addsto cost)
Figure 17-21Page 365
Advantages
Trade-Offs
Coal
Disadvantages
Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25Slide 25
Moderate cost (with large government subsidies)
Vehicle fuel
Large potential supply
High water use
Increased surface mining of coal
High environmental impact
Requires mining 50% more coal
Higher cost than coal
Low to moderate net energy yield
Lower air pollution when burned than coal
Figure 17-22Page 365
Advantages
Trade-Offs
Synthetic Fuels
Disadvantages
High CO2 emissions when burned
Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26Slide 26
Periodic removaland storage of
radioactive wastesand spent fuel assemblies
Periodic removaland storage of
radioactive liquid wastes
Pump
Steam
Small amounts of radioactive gases
Water
Turbine Generator
Waste heat Electrical power
Hot water output
Condenser
Cool water input
Pump
Pump Wasteheat
Useful energy25 to 30%
WasteheatWater source
(river, lake, ocean)
Heatexchanger
Containment shell
Uranium fuel input(reactor core)
Emergency corecooling system
Controlrods
Moderator
Pressurevessel
Shielding
Coolantpassage
CoolantCoolant
Hot coolantHot coolant
Figure 17-23Page 367
Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27Slide 27
Figure 17-24Page 368
Decommissioning of reactor
Reactor
Fuel assemblies
Enrichment UF6
Conversion of U3 O8 to UF6
Fuel fabrication
(conversion of enrichedUF6 to UO2 and fabricationof fuel assemblies)
Uranium 235 asUF6 Plutonium-239as PuO2
Low level radiationwith long half-life
Spent fuelreprocessing
Temporary storageof spent fuel assemblies
underwater or in dry casks
Geologic disposal of moderateand high-level radioactive wastes
Open fuel cycle today
Prospective “closed” end of fuel cycle
Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28Slide 28
Figure 17-25Page 369
Operational
Decommissioned
Yucca Mountain high-levelnuclear waste storage site
Reactors
1
1
Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29Slide 29
Low risk of accidents because of multiple safety systems (except in 35 poorly designed and run reactors in former Soviet Unionand Eastern Europe)
Moderate land use
Moderate land disruption and water pollution(without accidents)
Emits 1/6 as much CO2 as coal
Low environmentalimpact (without accidents)
Large fuel supply
Spreads knowledge andtechnology for building nuclear weapons
No widely acceptable solution for long-term storage of radioactive wastes and decommissioning worn-out plants
Catastrophic accidents can happen (Chernobyl)
High environmental impact (with major accidents)
Low net energy yield
High cost (even with large subsidies)
Figure 17-26Page 370
Subject to terrorist attacks
Advantages
Trade-Offs
Conventional Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Disadvantages
Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30Slide 30
Ample supply
High net energy yield
Very high air pollution
High CO2 emissions
High land disruption fromsurface mining
High land use
Low cost (with huge subsidies)
Ample supply of uranium
Low net energy yield
Low air pollution (mostly from fuel reprocessing)
Low CO2 emissions (mostly from fuel reprocessing)
Much lower land disruption fromsurface mining
Moderate land use
High cost (with hugesubsidies)
Figure 17-27Page 371
Coal
Trade-Offs
Coal vs. Nuclear
Nuclear
Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31Slide 31
Figure 17-28Page 373
Storage Containers
Fuel rod
Primary canister
Overpack containersealed
Underground
Buried and capped
Ground Level
Unloaded from train
Lowered down shaft
Personnal elevator
Air shaft
Nuclear waste shaft
2,500 ft.(760 m)deep
Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32Slide 32
Figure 17-29Page 374
Nuclear power plantsYucca MountainRailroadsHighways
Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33Slide 33
Click to view animation.
Animation
HIV replication animation.
Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34Slide 34
Click to view animation.
Animation
HIV replication animation.