NivaarExam PrepOfficial exam papers ↗

23-CS-3 Sustainability, Engineering and the Environment · December 2019

Question 3 of 5: Comparison of 300 MW Generating Technologies

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

Notes on this paper

National Exams — December 2019 — 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 300 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.

TechnologyCapital costFuel costLandGHG emissionsHealth risk to neighbours
Wind farmM–H: turbines are moderately priced per MW of nameplate, but a ~35% capacity factor means roughly 850 MW of turbines (plus transmission and backup) to deliver an average 300 MWL: the wind is free; only O&M costsH: turbines need wide spacing (tens of km²), although farming or grazing can continue between towersL: no combustion; only the embodied emissions of steel, concrete and blade manufacture upstreamL: no air emissions; minor nuisance (noise, shadow flicker) and bird/bat impacts
NuclearH: reactor, containment and safety systems make it the most capital-intensive option, with long construction times and overrunsL: uranium is energy-dense, so fuel is a small share of the cost even after mining, enrichment and fabricationL: compact site; upstream uranium mining and waste storage add modest landL: no combustion; small upstream emissions from mining, enrichment and constructionL–M: negligible routine exposure, but a low-probability, high-consequence accident risk, spent-fuel storage, and uranium-mine tailings upstream
Natural gas turbinesL: gas turbines (simple or combined cycle) are the cheapest and quickest to build per MWM–H: fuel is the dominant, market-volatile costL: compact plant; upstream wells, pipelines and fracking pads add a modest dispersed footprintM: about half of coal’s CO₂ per MWh, plus upstream methane leakage from wells and pipelinesL–M: NOₓ is the main stack pollutant (little SO₂ or PM); upstream fracking raises local air and water concerns
Wood pelletsM: boiler, steam turbine and particulate controls, much like a solid-fuel steam plantM–H: harvesting, drying, pelletizing and hauling a bulky, lower-energy fuel is costlyH: sustained supply needs a very large area of managed forest (hundreds of km²)M: combustion CO₂ is high per MWh and is only offset over decades of regrowth; harvesting, pelletizing and transport add fossil emissionsM: fine particulates, CO and NOₓ from combustion, plus heavy truck traffic
Coal-firedM–H: large boiler, coal handling, and SO₂/PM/NOₓ controlsM: coal is cheap per GJ, but large tonnages must be mined and hauled by railM: plant plus coal storage, ash ponds and upstream strip minesH: the highest CO₂ per MWh (about 1 t/MWh), plus mine methaneH: PM₂.₅, SO₂, NOₓ and mercury emissions, ash-pond failures, and coal-dust from mines and rail

Explanation

Each rating in the table is justified in its own cell and covers both the plant and its upstream fuel or material chain. Wind: no fuel and almost no emissions, but capital-intensive per delivered MW and land-extensive. Nuclear: very high capital, cheap fuel, compact and near-zero carbon; the social concern is accident and waste risk rather than routine exposure. Natural gas: cheap to build but exposed to fuel prices, with medium GHG (about half of coal) and low local pollution. Wood pellets: a moderate-capital steam plant whose fuel chain is costly and land-hungry, and which is only conditionally low-carbon while emitting particulates locally. Coal: land for plant and mines, the highest GHG, and (through particulates, SOₓ, NOₓ and mercury) the highest health risk to neighbours. Considering the triple bottom line and upstream processes: wind and nuclear are the true low-carbon options (trading land or capital/risk), gas is a lower-carbon fossil bridge, biomass is only conditionally low-carbon and adds local pollution, and coal is worst overall.