NivaarExam PrepOfficial exam papers ↗

11-CS-3 Engineering Management · May 2018

Question 3 of 5: Comparison of 200 MW Generating Technologies

Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)

Notes on this paper

National Exams — May 2018 — 11-CS-3 Sustainability, Engineering and the Environment. Open book; non-communicating calculator permitted. Any four questions constitute a complete paper; all questions are of equal value (25 marks each).

Question 3: Comparison of 200 MW Generating Technologies (25 marks)

Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.

TechnologyLandFuel costGHG emissionsLocal health riskInitial cost
WindH — turbines need wide spacing (tens of km² for 200 MW), though the ground between them stays farmableL — wind is free; only O&ML — only embodied emissions in steel, concrete and bladesL — no combustion; noise/shadow-flicker nuisance onlyM — moderate capital per MW, but must build ~3× nameplate to offset a ~30–35% capacity factor
NuclearL — compact site; small upstream uranium-mining footprint plus exclusion zoneL — uranium is a small share of generating costL — near-zero at the plant; modest upstream (mining, enrichment, construction)M — routine risk very low, but low-probability accident, spent-fuel and mine-tailings (radon) concernsH — highest capital cost per MW, long licensing and build
Solar PV farmH — panels cover the ground (several km² for 200 MW), largely excluding other usesL — sunlight is freeL — embodied emissions from silicon refining and panel manufacture onlyL — no emissions in operation; upstream manufacturing chemicals handled off-siteM — module prices have fallen sharply; a low capacity factor (~15–20% in Canada) still inflates cost per delivered MWh
Wood-pellet plantH — needs a very large forest/fibre supply area harvested continuouslyM — pellets must be harvested, dried, pelletized and trucked continuouslyM — stack CO₂ is high, offset only over decades by regrowth; harvest/pelletizing/transport add emissionsM — combustion releases particulates, NOₓ and CO near the siteM — conventional boiler/turbine plant plus fuel handling and storage
Coal-firedM — compact plant, but upstream mining, ash ponds and rail yards add landM — continuous coal purchase and transportH — the most carbon-intensive option (~0.9–1.0 t CO₂/MWh) plus mine methaneH — PM₂.₅, SO₂, NOₓ and mercury cause respiratory/cardiac illness; mining hazards upstreamM — mature technology, but scrubbers and emission controls add substantial capital

Explanation

Environmental: the combustion options (coal, and to a lesser degree wood pellets) dominate on greenhouse gases and air pollution once upstream mining, harvesting and transport are counted, while wind, solar and nuclear are low-carbon across the life cycle. The renewables pay instead in land: wind and solar are diffuse sources and need far more area per MW than a compact nuclear or coal station, and pellet supply needs a large forest area. Social: local health risk is highest for coal (chronic air pollution affecting everyone downwind) and medium for biomass combustion; nuclear's routine risk is very low but its accident and waste risks drive public concern; wind and solar raise mainly visual and land-use objections. Economic: wind and solar have essentially zero fuel cost but low capacity factors, so more nameplate capacity must be built; nuclear has the highest initial cost and the lowest fuel cost; coal and biomass carry a continuing fuel bill. Considering upstream processes, coal is worst on emissions and health; wind, solar and nuclear are genuinely low-carbon; biomass is only conditionally low-carbon and adds local air pollution. The ratings are relative to one another for a 200 MW facility, and would shift with site (wind/solar resource, forest supply) and with carbon pricing.