NivaarExam PrepOfficial exam papers ↗

23-CS-3 Sustainability, Engineering and the Environment · December 2015

Question 3 of 5: Comparison of Electricity-Generating Technologies

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

Notes on this paper

National Exams — December 2015 — 11-CS-3 Sustainability, Engineering and the Environment. Closed book; approved calculator permitted. Any four questions constitute a complete paper; all questions are of equal value (25 marks each).

Question 3: Comparison of Electricity-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.

TechnologyLand requirementAir emissionsSafety & riskInitial costOperating cost
Natural-gas turbineL — compact plant; gas wells and pipelines add some upstream landM — CO₂ about half of coal per kWh, some NOₓ; negligible SO₂ and particulatesL — fire/explosion of flammable gas is well controlled; upstream methane leaksL — modular, quick to build (lowest $/kW)M — fuel is the main cost and its price is volatile
High-head hydroH — reservoir floods valleys, habitat and sometimes communitiesL — none in operation; some methane from decaying flooded biomassM — dam failure is rare but catastrophic downstream; fish passageH — dam, tunnels, penstocks and long transmission linesL — no fuel, long life, little staffing
NuclearL — compact site (plus exclusion zone and mining)L — no combustion emissions in operationH — low-probability/high-consequence accidents, long-lived radioactive wasteH — very high capital, long licensing and buildM — cheap fuel, but large staff, security and waste/decommissioning funds
Solar PVH — low power density; large area for utility-scale arrays (rooftops avoid it)L — none in operation; emissions only in panel manufactureL — few hazards; end-of-life panel wasteM — module prices falling, still significant per kW of firm outputL — no fuel, minimal maintenance
WindM — turbines spread over a wide area, but land between them stays farmedL — none in operationL — rare blade/ice throw; bird and bat collisionsM — turbines, foundations and grid connectionL — no fuel; routine maintenance only

Explanation

Natural-gas turbine: compact; emits CO₂ (about half of coal) with low other pollutants; low, well-controlled fire/explosion risk; the lowest capital cost per kW but an ongoing, volatile fuel cost. High-head hydro: floods large reservoirs; negligible air emissions; dam-failure risk; high capital but very low operating cost. Nuclear: compact; near-zero air emissions; the highest safety concern (radioactive-waste storage and low-probability/high-consequence accidents); very high capital, moderate operating cost. Solar PV: needs significant area; negligible operating emissions; low risk; medium capital and very low operating cost. Wind: small footprint but wide spacing; negligible emissions; blade/ice-throw and wildlife risk; medium capital and very low operating cost. The pattern: fossil gas has low capital but fuel cost and CO₂; the low-carbon options (hydro, nuclear, solar, wind) have higher capital but low operating cost, differing mainly in land use and risk profile.