An Assessment of the Satellite Power System and Six Alternative Technologies DOE/ER-0099 April 1981 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Research Solar Power Satellite Project Division Under Contract No. 31-109-ENG-38 DOE/NASA Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program
DOE/ER-0099 Dist. Category UC-97 An Assessment of the Satellite Power System and Six Alternative Technologies April 1981 Prepared by: T. Wolsko, R. Whitfield, M. Samsa, L S. Habegger, E. Levine and E. Tanzman Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, IL 60439 Under Contract No. 31-109-ENG-38 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Research Solar Power Satellite Project Division Washington, D.C. 20585 DOE/NASA Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program
DEFINITIONS OF UNIT SYMBOLS Btu: British thermal unit °C: degrees Celsius Ci: curie (unit of radioactivity) cm: centimeter d: day dB: decibel dBa: decibel, adjusted °F: degrees Fahrenheit g: gram GHz: gigahertz (10$ cycles per second) GW: gigawatt (10$ watts) h: hour J: joule kg: kilogram (10^ grams) kJ: kilojoule km: kilometer kV: kilovolt kW: kilowatt kWh: k i1owa t t-hour L: liter lb: pound m: meter mL: milliliter (10“3 liter) mW: milliwatt MeV: mega electron-volt (10$ electron-volts) MW: megawatt MWe: megawatt (electric energy) MWt: megawatt (thermal energy) MW-yr: megawatt-year pm: micrometer (10”$ meter) N: newton (unit of force) N/m^: newton per square meter Pa: pascal (unit of pressure: 1 Pa = 1 N/m^) Q: quad (1015 Btu) s: second t: metric ton (1000 kilograms) T: tesla (unit of magnetic force); also English ton W: watt yr: year
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................... xi REFERENCES FOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................ xxxiv 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 1.1 Background...................................................... 1 1.2 Objective and Approach.......................................... 1 2 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ................................................ 4 2.1 Overview........................................................ 4 2.2 Comparative Issues.............................................. 4 2.3 Selection of Energy Alternatives................................ 6 2.4 Characterization of Energy Systems.............................. 7 2.5 Side-by-Side Analysis of Energy Systems ......................... 7 2.6 Alternative Futures Analysis.................................... 9 2.7 Assessment Integration/Aggregation Techniques ................. 10 3 CHARACTERIZATIONS OF THE SPS AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES................ 11 3.1 Selection of Alternative Technologies .......................... 11 3.2 Brief Technical Description of Alternative Generation Systems . . 14 3.2.1 Satellite Power System .................................. 14 3.2.2 Central-Station Terrestrial Photovoltaic System............. 21 3.2.3 Conventional Coal-Fired Power Plant........................22 3.2.4 Coal-Gas ification/Combined-Cycle Power Plant...............26 3.2.5 Light Water Reactor Power Plant............................30 3.2.6 Liquid-Metal, Fast-Breeder Reactor ...................... 32 3.2.7 Fusion....................................................37 3.3 Cost Characterizations............................................41 3.3.1 Satellite Power System .................................. 42 3.3.2 Conventional Coal-Fired Power Plant with Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization........................... 45 3.3.3 Combined-Cycle Power Plant with Low-Btu Gasifiers...........46 3.3.4 Light Water Reactor........................................46 3.3.5 Liquid-Metal, Fast-Breeder Reactor .................... 47 3.3.6 Fusion Reactor............................................47 3.3.7 Central-Station Terrestrial Photovoltaic ................ 48 4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ................................................ 49 4.1 Assumptions and Alternative Futures Scenarios .................. 49 4.1.1 Assumptions of the Comparative Analysis.....................49 4.1.2 Alternative Futures Scenarios..............................51 4.2 Cost and Performance.............................................. 68 4.2.1 Introduction.............................................. 68 4.2.2 Uncertainty in Capital Cost Ranges for SPS and Alternatives.......................................... 69 4.2.3 Fuel Price Projections.................................... 72
4.2.4 Cost Comparisons...........................................74 4.2.5 Cost Sensitivity Analysis.................................79 4.2.6 Comparative Cost Uncertainty...............................87 4.3 Health and Safety................................................94 4.3.1 Introduction...............................................94 4.3.2 Methodology...............................................94 4.3.3 Discussion of Results.....................................97 4.4 Environmental Welfare Effects ................................. 112 4.4.1 Introduction.............................................. 112 4.4.2 Comparative Impacts ..................................... 113 4.4.3 Generation of Air Pollution..............................121 4.4.4 Climatic Changes Due to Air Pollution....................123 4.4.5 Thermal Discharges and Resulting Climatic Change..........124 4.4.6 Water Pollution..........................................125 4.4.7 Water Use Changes........................................125 4.4.8 Generation of Solid Waste ............................... 126 4.4.9 Land Use Changes..........................................127 4.4.10 Noise Generation.......................................... 127 4.4.11 Electromagnetic Disturbances..............................128 4.4.12 Radioactive Emissions ................................... 128 4.4.13 Microwave Radiation .................................... 129 4.4.14 Aesthetic Disturbances....................................129 4.5 Resources....................................................... 129 4.5.1 Land...................................................... 130 4.5.2 Materials................................................ 137 4.5.3 Energy.................................................... 137 4.5.4 Water.................................................... 142 4.5.5 Labor.................................................... 144 4.6 Macroeconomic and Socioeconomic Issues............................ 146 4.6.1 Introduction.............................................. 146 4.6.2 Macroeconomic Analysis....................................147 4.6.3 Socioeconomic Comparisons ............................... 157 4.7 Institutional Issues............................................. 158 4.7.1 Introduction.............................................. 158 4.7.2 Comparison of Present Regulatory Schemes..................159 4.7.3 Regulatory Trends ....................................... 167 4.7.4 Summary.................................................. 168 5 ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS .............................................. 169 5.1 Introduction..................................................... 169 5.2 Side-by-Side Conclusions......................................... 169 5.3 Alternative Futures Conclusions of the Comparative Assessment . . 177 5.4 Concluding Remarks............................................... 182 REFERENCES................................................................183
FIGURES 1 Fuel Price Projections for Different Scenarios......................xviii 2 Development Costs of the SPS.......................................xix 3 Total Quantified Construction and O&M Fatalities per 1000 MW-yr . . xx 4 Alternative Futures Analysis of Land Requirements ................ xxii 5 Alternative Futures Analysis of Annual Water Consumption for Baseload Electricity Generation .............................. xxiii 2.1 Analysis Sequence for Comparative Assessment................. 5 2.2 Comparative Assessment Classification System................. 6 3.1 Satellite Power System Concept.................................16 3.2 SPS Satellite Configurations...................................17 3.3 SPS Efficiency Chain, GaAlAs and Si...........................18 3.4 Efficiency Chain of the Central-Station Photovoltaic System .... 21 3.5 Generation of 1250 MW, High-Sulfur Coal, Wellman-Lord Process ... 23 3.6 Wellman-Lord Process...........................................25 3.7 1250-MW Coal-Gasification/Combined-Cycle System .................. 27 3.8 Summary of Emissions from a 1250-MW, Low-Btu Gasifier, Combined-Cycle Plant.....................................29 3.9 Simplified LWR Flow Diagram...................................31 3.10 1250-MW Liquid-Metal, Fast-Breeder Reactor.....................34 3.11 Configurations of Pool- and Loop-type Primary Coolant Systems ... 35 3.12 Schematic of NUWMAK Fusion Power Plant.........................38 3.13 Schematic of NUWMAK Load-Leveling System.......................39 3.14 Tritium Effluent System Design................................ 40 3.15 Development Costs of the SPS...................................43 4.1 U.S. Energy Output Ratios, 1929-1974, and Base Projections to 2025. 52 4.2 Simplified Macroeconomic Model of the Interaction between Energy and the Economy........................................ 53 4.3 Ratio of Gross Energy/GNP, in 10^ Btu/1971 $....................... 57 4.4 Supply-Demand Patterns for Various Scenarios in the Year 2000 ... 58 4.5 Supply-Demand Patterns for Various Scenarios in the Year 2025 ... 59 4.6 Electrification as a Percentage of Net Energy Use: Three Scenarios.............................................. 60 4.7 Delivered Oil Prices.................................................61 4.8 Delivered Natural Gas Prices, $/10$ Btu ........................... 62 4.9 Delivered Coal Prices, $/10$ Btu................................... 63
4.10 Electricity Prices, $/10$ Btu .................................... 64 4.11 Cost and Performance Evaluation Framework ........................ 69 4.12 Fuel Price Projections for Different Scenarios...................... 76 4.13 U3O8 Prices for Constrained and Unconstrained Scenarios .......... 77 4.14 Typical Patterns of Costs and Revenue Requirements.................. 78 4.15 Levelized Energy Cost Ranges for Scenario UH........................ 81 4.16 Levelized Energy Cost Ranges for Scenario UI...................... 82 4.17 Levelized Energy Cost Ranges for Scenario CI........................ 83 4.18 Total Energy Costs as a Function of Capacity........................ 84 4.19 Effect of Changes in Financial Assumptions on Relative Positions of Technologies .................................. 86 4.20 Comparison of Coal and SPS Energy Costs with Fixed Parameters and Inputs ...................................... 87 4.21 Coal Prices........................................................ 88 4.22 Real Coal Price Increases.......................................... 90 4.23 Distributions of Levelized Fuel Cost and Levelized Capital Charge of a Coal Plant................................ 91 4.24 Typical Cost Distribution for Advanced Technologies .............. 91 4.25 Distributions of the Sum of Cost Elements.......................... 92 4.26 Probability Curves of SPS Costs Equalling Coal Costs................93 4.27 Components of Comprehensive Health and Safety Impact Analysis ... 95 4.28 Procedure for Computation of Occupational Impacts of Direct and Indirect Construction and Component Production............ 96 4.29 Direct and Indirect Occupational Fatalities from Unit Facility Component Production .............................. 100 4.30 Total Occupational Fatalities in Construction Phase of System with 1000 MW Average Generation....................... 100 4.31 Total Quantified Construction and O&M Fatalities per 1000 MW-yr . . 101 4.32 Annual Occupational Fatalities from Construction and O&M Baseload Scenarios with and without SPS..................... Ill 4.33 Pathway of Energy Activities, Impacts, and Effects................. 114 4.34 Land Requirements for Scenario CI, without SPS......................133 4.35 Land Requirements for Scenario CI, with SPS........................133 4.36 Land Requirements for Scenario UI, without SPS......................134 4.37 Land Requirements for Scenario UI, with SPS........................134 4.38 Land Requirements for Scenario UH, without SPS......................135
4.39 Land Requirements for Scenario UH, with SPS......................135 4.40 Alternative Futures Analysis of Land Requirements ................ 136 4.41 Schematic of Energy Balance ...................................... 139 4.42 Alternative Futures Analysis of Annual Water Consumption for Baseload Electricity Generation ........................ 143 4.43 O&M and Fuel Cycle Labor Requirements............................146 4.44 Coal Demand and Supply, Scenario CI...............................150 4.45 Coal Demand and Supply, Scenario UI.............................. 150 4.46 Coal Demand and Supply, Scenario UH.............................. 151 4.47 Changes in Annual Energy Expenditures with and without SPS in 2025, as a Function of SPS Energy Price..............153 4.48 Changes in Energy Expenditures for 2000-2030...................... 154 TABLES 1 Developmental Status of the Technologies Selected for Comparison. . xiii 2 Major Characteristics of Alternative Central-Station Technologies . xv 3 Capital Cost Ranges for Technical and Regulatory Uncertainty. . . . xvii 4 Levelized Energy Cost Ranges for Scenario CI.......................xviii 5 Net Decrease in Annual Energy Expenditures Due to the SPS ......... xxiv 6 Cost and Performance: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions ..................................... xxv 7 Health and Safety: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions ..................................... xxvi 8 Environmental Welfare: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions ..................................... xxvii 9 Resources: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions.xxviii 10 Economic/Societal Issues: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions .................................... xxix 11 Institutional Issues: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions .................................... xxx 12 Energy Supply Options ............................................ xxxi 13 Evaluation of Energy Supply Options S1-S3 for Demand Scenario UH - Unconstrained, High Demand....................xxxii 14 Evaluation of Energy Supply Options S4-S6 for Demand Scenario CI - Constrained, Intermediate Demand..............xxxiii 2.1 Candidate Alternative Technologies................................ 8
3.1 Technologies Considered in Initial Screening.........................12 3.2 Quant itiative Screening of Energy Systems........................... 13 3.3 Characterization Parameters for Plant Site and Fuel Cycle ......... 15 3.4 SPS Cell and Planform Power Characteristics......................... 19 3.5 Air Pollutants from a 1250-MW Coal Facility.........................26 3.6 Solid and Sludge Wastes from a 1250-MW Coal Facility, 70% Capacity Factor.......................................... 26 3.7 Postulated Radionuclide Releases, 1250-MW LMFBR Power Plant at 70% Capacity Factor.................................. 36 3.8 LMFBR Wastewater Effluents at Nominal Operation ................... 37 3.9 Capital Requirements of the SPS, 1978 Dollars x 10$.................44 3.10 Operations and Maintenance Costs of the SPS........................ 45 4.1 RFF Model Assumptions about Population, Labor Force, Productivity and GNP, 1975-2025 ............................ 54 4.2 Constrained Energy Supplies for Future Scenarios.................... 55 4.3 Assumed Long-Run Costs per Million Btu............................. 56 4.4 Nuclear Fuel Prices for Future Scenarios.............................65 4.5 Electrical Generation in Comparative Scenarios and Two Other Projections ...................................... 65 4.6 Total Installed and New-Construction Baseload Capacity for Six Comparative Assessment Scenarios......................66 4.7 Energy System Deployment for Scenario UH with and without SPS ... 66 4.8 Energy System Deployment for Scenario UI with and without SPS ... 67 4.9 Energy System Deployment for Scenario CI with and without SPS ... 67 4.10 Capital Cost Uncertainty Factors for Alternative Technologies ... 71 4.11 Capital Cost Ranges for Technical and Regulatory Uncertainty ... 73 4.12 Fuel Cost Projections: Delivered Prices for Three Scenarios, 1980 to 2020 .................................... 75 4.13 Base Capital Structure and Economic Assumptions .................. 79 4.14 Levelized 2000-2030 Cost of Electricity from SPS and Alternative Technologies...................................... 80 4.15 Effect of Reduced SPS Implementation Rate on Costs: Nominal Average Unit Costs.................................... 85 4.16 Uncertainty Index for Health and Safety Issues...................... 97 4.17 Categorization of Health and Safety Issues.......................... 98 4.18 Summary of Quantified Average Fatalities per Year per 1000 MW Generation, 30-Year Plant Lifetime....................99
4.19 Summary of Health and Safety Issues for Nuclear Fission Reactors. . 102 4.20 Summary of Health and Safety Issues for Combined-Cycle Coal System. 104 4.21 Summary of Health and Safety Issues for Central-Station Terrestrial Photovoltaic Power System ............................ 105 4.22 Summary of Health and Safety Issues for Satellite Power System. . . 106 4.23 Summary of Health and Safety Issues for the Fusion Power System . . 108 4.24 Summary of Potentially Major but Unquantified Issues............110 4.25 Scenario Baseload Capacities and Electrical Generation..........112 4.26 Welfare Effects of a Conventional Coal Fuel Cycle.............. 115 4.27 Welfare Effects of a Light Water Reactor Fuel Cycle .............. 116 4.28 Welfare Effects of a Coal-Gasification/Combined-Cycle Fuel Cycle. . 117 4.29 Welfare Effects of a Liquid-Metal, Fast-Breeder Reactor Fuel Cycle. 118 4.30 Welfare Effects of a Terrestrial Photovoltaic Fuel Cycle........ 119 4.31 Welfare Effects of a Satellite Power System Fuel Cycle.......... 120 4.32 Welfare Effects of a Fusion Fuel Cycle.......................... 121 4.33 Potential Severity of and Status of Knowledge about Key Environmental Welfare Issues................................. 122 4.34 Side-by-Side Comparative Assessments: Resources................... 131 4.35 Land Requirements, by Technology, in km^ per GW of Installed Capacity........................................... 132 4.36 Land Requirements per Unit Energy Output........................... 132 4.37 Potential Materials Problems, by Technology, for Three Screening Criteria..................................... 138 4.38 Summary of Energy Balance Data..................................... 141 4.39 Water Consumption Data for Energy Systems, 10$ m3/GW/yr............ 143 4.40 Labor Requirements for Specific Plant Designs ................... 145 4.41 Normalized Labor Requirements .................................... 145 4.42 Baseline Energy/Economic Data .................................... 149 4.43 Energy Use and Prices for 2025 without SPS......................... 149 4.44 Baseload and SPS Deployment Data................................... 151 4.45 Energy Use and Prices for 2025 with SPS Deployment at 60 mills/kWh. 152 4.46 Energy Expenditures with SPS at 60 mills/kWh and without SPS for the Year 2025 ...................................... 152 4.47 Energy Technology Labor Requirements............................... 157 4.48 Justifications for Regulating Coal Technologies at Each Level of Government......................................... 161
4.49 Justifications for Regulating Light Water or Breeder Reactors at Each Level of Government......................... 162 4..5 0 Justifications for Regulating Terrestrial Photovoltaics at Each Level of Government................................. 163 4.51 Justifications for Regulating SPS at Each Level of Government . . . 164 4.52 Comparative Cost Estimates for Federal Regulations of Coal and Light Water Reactor Electricity Production Systems....... 166 5.1 Cost and Performance: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions .................................... 170 5.2 Health and Safety: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions .................................... 171 5.3 Environmental Welfare: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions .................................... 172 5.4 Resources: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions. 173 5.5 Economic/Societal Issues: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions .................................... 174 5.6 Institutional Issues: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions .......................................... 175 5.7 Energy Supply Options ............................................. 179 5.8 Evaluation of Energy Supply Options S1-S3 for Demand Scenario UH - Unconstrained, High Demand..................... 180 5.9 Evaluation of Energy Supply Options S4-S6 for Demand Scenario CI - Constrained, Intermediate Demand............... 181
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The SPS Concept Development and Evaluation Program (CDEP)^ was established by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to generate information by which a rational decision could be made regarding the direction of the Satellite Power System (SPS) program after fiscal 1980. The four functional areas within the joint DOE/NASA CDEP are as follows: • Systems Definition: development of the SPS reference system design. • Environmental Assessment: evaluation of potential environmental effects of SPS. • Societal Assessment: evaluation of potential societal effects of SPS. • Comparative Assessment: development of a comparative data base on the SPS and six other energy technologies. The results of the first three activities are inputs to the comparative assessment process as well as independent program assessments. This report concerns the comparative assessment portion of the CDEP. The objective of the comparative assessment is to develop an initial understanding of the SPS with respect to a limited set of energy alternatives. This is consistent with the overall CDEP objective, that is, to determine whether or not the SPS concept is sufficiently attractive (presenting no insurmountable barriers) to receive further research investment. In all comparative assessments it is vital that the assumptions, uncertainties, and significant differences between the systems being compared are clearly and objectively presented. Otherwise, the comparison may prove useless for making meaningful decisions. The key assumptions and ground rules made in this report are as follows: 1. The baseload electric generation technologies are projected to be on line in the year 2000, with an approximate availability date of 1990. Further, the R&D base and the infrastructure are assumed to be in place when required. 2. All data are traceable to publicly available information. 3. Each technology is treated as an independent variable. For example, if coal costs go up or down, the costs of the other technologies are assumed not to change for the same reasons. 4. When no historical data or basic reports were available, the analysts have specified the conditions they have chosen and presented their rationales for doing so. In cases where the chosen conditions have favored or disfavored a technology, the analysts have stated the bias.
The SPS, fusion, and central-station terrestrial photovoltaics technologies have received less engineering design and R&D than the other technologies examined in this assessment. Therefore, they are subject to larger uncertainty as well as greater optimism. Furthermore, the life cycle costs of these three technologies are reduced, since the R&D and infrastructure costs are not addressed explicitly, in keeping with the second part of the first assumpt ion. The third assumption tends to exaggerate cost overlap, but taking correlated characteristics into account was not feasible in this study except in a theoretical way. The choices made under the fourth assumption tend to favor the two solar technologies and fusion. The intent of the data derived under these assumptions is to compare SPS to each of the other six technologies, or to subsets of the six, or to all six technologies together. The limitations resulting from the assumptions preclude other comparisons. Within these assumptions and ground rules, the six limited but representative energy technologies were selected, characterized, and documented. These data were normalized to unit bases, such as dollars per megawatt or environmental residuals per megawatt, and alternative futures were compared (i.e., possible technology mixes, supply and demand cases, and resultant environmental, resource, and cost uncertainties). The technology alternatives selected for comparison with the SPS were limited to the following: • Improved conventional coal technology • Light water reactor (LWR) • Coal gasification/combined cycle (CG/CC) • Liquid-metal, fast-breeder reactor (LMFBR) • Central station, terrestrial photovoltaic (TPV) • Fusion (magnetically confined) These selections were considered to be the most representative set of year- 2000 energy technologies for comparison to the SPS reference system. It should be noted that the selections were not made by DOE, but by the Concept Development and Evaluation Program. A six-step comparative methodology is described briefly in this report and more thoroughly in a companion report.2 This assessment included only five of the six steps (i.e., selection of alternatives, issue selection, system characterizations, side-by-side analysis, and alternative futures analys is). This assessment represents an update of the preliminary side-by-side comparative assessment^ and has added an alternative futures analysis. The update includes changes in the technology descriptions as well as improvements in the comparative analyses. Included in this document are a brief description of the comparative methodology, brief characterizations of the alternative technologies,
side-by-side comparisons in selected issue areas, alternative futures analysis for three different scenarios and most issues, and conclusions on the comparative viability of the SPS technology. The issue areas used for comparisons were (1) cost and performance, (2) health and safety, (3) environmental welfare, (4) resources, (5) macro- economic and socioeconomic, and (6) institutional. The comparisons were performed for technologies that are at different stages of development — current, near-term, and advanced — and which therefore have different degrees of information available (e.g., actual vs. projected construction data). Table 1 lists experience and uncertainty levels for the technologies evaluated in this assessment. Capital cost uncertainty factors and cost uncertainty issues are also listed. These cost uncertainty factors were developed on the basis of existing relevant documentation and on the judgments of the assessment participants. As stated earlier, the information presented and developed in these comparisons has been derived from published research and information found in the literature for the various technologies. However, in some instances, data have not been available from such sources, and it has been necessary to develop these data either through analysis or on the basis of engineering judgment. In these instances, the rationales are explained and the inherent uncertainties duly noted. Table 1 Developmental Status of the Technologies Selected for Comparison
Cost and performance characterization data for the alternative technologies are presented briefly in Sec. 3 and form the basis for the comparisons that are reported in Sec. 4. Cost data for the SPS were obtained from NASA-sponsored Boeing and Rockwell systems design efforts. Cost estimates for the alternative technologies were developed from reference design reports. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CHARACTERIZATIONS Six alternative technologies were selected for comparison with the SPS; their major characteristics are displayed in Table 2. The general approach was to review a broad segment of the recent technical literature concerned with the characteristics of the individual technologies and their accompanying fuel cycles. This data base of information was then synthesized into the alternative technology reference characterizations by adapting the data into internally consistent energy and materials balances for each of the systems. Where appropriate, a nominal generating capacity of 1250 MWe was selected for the reference technologies. Only the terrestrial photovoltaic and fusion systems differ from this nominal capacity due to special considerations unique to each system. An integral part of the energy and materials balances was the determination of natural resource requirements such as land, water, fuels, and other raw materials, and the determination of environmental residuals including air-borne emissions, liquid effluents, and solid and radioactive wastes. These parameters have been estimated for the main plant site and for major elements of the respective fuel cycles. The final step in the characterization procedure was to estimate the capital construction costs, labor requirements, and annual nonfuel operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for each alternative reference system. Detailed lists of equipment, materials, and site labor requirements from the Energy Economic Data Base (EEDB) and other major references were used as the basis for estimating the direct and indirect capital construction costs and construction labor requirements for many of the systems. For technologies not included in the EEDB, similar data from other major references was used. All costs are presented in 1978 dollars. Direct capital costs include the costs of all materials, components, structures, and direct labor necessary for construction of the reference facility at the plant site. Indirect costs include temporary site construction facilities, payroll insurance and taxes, and other construction services. Excluded are items sensitive to the particular policies of individual utilities, including owner’s costs, fees and permits, interest on construction funds, contingency funds, and price escalation during construction. Nonfuel O&M costs were derived on the basis of labor requirements, disposal and materials handling costs, and other factors applicable to the respective technologies. Decommissioning costs for each of the nuclear systems are also included. Fuel costs for each of the systems are scenariodependent and will be estimated as part of the subsequent cost and performance analys is.
Table 2 Major Characteristics of Alternative Central Station Technologies*
ALTERNATIVE FUTURES SCENARIOS Since the objective of this comparative assessment is to compare technologies projected for the post-2000 era, a great number of assumptions are required. Most of these assumptions are highly uncertain and interdependent so that a single consistent set may not present the decision maker with an adequate comparative perspective of the future. The alternative futures analysis was chosen as a means of providing a broader perspective of key parameters that may describe the future. The assumptions underlying the alternative futures analysis constitute a set of energy supply/demand futures or scenarios. Six scenarios were created from a consistent economic model so that interdependencies between economic assumptions were preserved. Scenarios were selected as a means of exploring and analyzing, not predicting, the economic energy future. The scenarios were selected to represent a plausible future world, and no probabilities were assigned to any of them. Scenarios were selected to provide a comparative perspective on the negative and positive aspects of demand and mixes of supply technologies in the post-2000 era. A model developed by Resources for the Future, Inc. (RFF)^ was selected for this assessment on the basis of several selection criteria -- sectoral detail, endogenous treatment of both capital investment and final demand, and transferable experience in the form of existing model runs covering the desired time frame, 2000-2030. One GNP trajectory was selected for all scenarios. For simplicity, three alternative price elasticities of aggregate demand for energy were considered, viz., H: High energy intensiveness, corresponding to low elasticity (-0.25); I: Intermediate energy intensiveness, corresponding to intermediate elasticity (-0.4 for residential and housing demand, -0.7 for industry, 0 for feedstocks); L: Low energy intensiveness, corresponding to high elasticity (-0.75). Regarding constraints, two cases were selected: U: Unconstrained supply of coal and nuclear power; C: Constrained supply, due to health, safety, environmental, and other limitations on the rate of supply increase. The three price elasticities and two different constraints resulted in the development of six scenarios. Each of these scenarios resulted in different supply-demand patterns and different fuel (i.e., coal and nuclear) price trajectories. Three of these six scenarios [i.e., unconstrained high energy (UH), unconstrained intermediate energy intensity (Ui), and constrained intermediate energy intensity (CI)] were selected for the alternative futures compar isons.
COST AND PERFORMANCE Table 3 shows the nominal capital costs and capital cost uncertainty factors that were developed for the SPS and the six alternative technologies. The following three factors were considered to include the major capital cost uncertainties and were used to derive the capital cost uncertainty ratios shown in Table 3. 1. Uncertainty about future costs of materials, supplies, and labor necessary to construct powerplant facilities; 2. Uncertainty about the future requirements and associated costs of environmental and safety equipment; and 3. Uncertainty about the capability of technologies to perform as conceptualized. The analysis of the alternative energy supply/demand scenarios resulted in the range of fuel prices shown in Fig. 1. The range of coal prices seems to bracket forecasts made by others, and the light water reactor fuel price is similar to that in other projections. The capital cost ranges and scenario-dependent fuel prices were used to calculate levelized energy cost ranges for each technology. Table 4 shows the levelized energy cost ranges for the SPS and the six alternatives for scenario CI (constrained coal and nuclear, intermediate energy demand). Similar energy cost ranges were calculated for other scenarios with similar cost ranges. These cost ranges were developed with independent reference costs so that the degree of overlap between coal and nuclear technologies and the SPS systems is not as large as shown in Table 4, because there is probably some correlation between the SPS cost base and coal/nuclear data bases that are not accounted for in these calculations. Table 3 Capital Cost Ranges for Technical and Regulatory Uncertainty ($/kW)
Table 4 Levelized Energy Cost Ranges for Scenario CIa Fig. 1 Fuel Price Projections for Different Scenarios
DEVELOPMENT COSTS Boeing^5 estimated development costs on the basis of the reference system scenario, which predicates a 20-year development schedule and a 30-year deployment schedule (for 60 5-GW satellites). These costs amount to $100-110 billion and are broken down as follows (Fig. 2): • Research costs: mainly ground-based research to address environmental and social issues and alternative systems, resulting in a preferred system; • Engineering: development and testing of prototype subsystems, resulting in specifications for demonstration units and production facilities; • Demonstration: flight tests of a 100-200 MW unit integrated with a commercial network; • Investment: development of industrial infrastructure, e.g., transportation, photovoltaic, and klystron manufacturing facilities. • Construction and implementation: the first 5-GW SPS unit put into place. It is important to note that these cost estimates assume that all effort is specific to the SPS. The benefits from generic research or from cost sharing (e.g., industry or other federal program support for photovoltaics manufacturing facilities) have not been considered. Such cost modifications could amount to 50-70% of the $102.5 billion.? Since comparable cost data for the other six technologies were not available, side-by-side comparisons of costs or of the benefits or disadvantages of public expenditures were not attempted. Fig. 2 Development Costs of the SPS (Source: Ref. 6)
HEALTH AND SAFETY The comparison of health and safety aspects of advanced and current technologies is not possible on the basis of total quantified risk because of the uncertainties and unquant ifiable impacts for all the technologies, even current coal and nuclear technologies. The health and safety issues can best be summarized as follows: • All the technologies will have distinct health and safety impacts. • It is difficult to quantify and assess the low-level and delayed impacts of all the technologies. Assessing the health and safety risks required three major tasks: detailed characterization of each phase of the fuel cycle; analysis of the magnitude of risk associated with each identified issue; and accumulation of risks by technology, risk category, and generation scenario. Each segment of the energy cycle was considered, including component fabrication, plant construction, fuel extraction and processing, operation and maintenance, and waste disposal. In addition, an uncertainty index was assigned to each issue to reflect the uncertainty in the magnitude of the impact. Figure 3 shows the total quantified construction and O&M fatalities per MW/yr for SPS and five alternative technologies. Fig. 3 Total Quantified Construction and O&M Fatalities per 1000 MW-yr
Of the various systems considered, the coal technology has the largest overall quantified risk, primarily due to coal extraction, processing and transport, and air-borne emissions, although large uncertainties remain in the actual effect of the air-borne emissions. On the other hand, additional issues that are potentially major but remain largely unquant ifiable were not identified for the coal system. Quantified risks from the remaining technologies (fission, fusion, SPS, and centralized terrestrial photovoltaic) are comparable within the range of quantified uncertainty. The occupational risks for component production, both direct and indirect, are a substantial fraction of the total risk, in particular for the advanced, capital-intensive solar and fusion technologies. ENVIRONMENTAL WELFARE Environmental effects not related to health and safety are classified here as environmental welfare effects, e.g., weather modification by carbon dioxide, materials degradation, electromagnetic interference with communications, aesthetics, and noise. Welfare effects were identified at each part of the fuel cycle and were categorized by the environmental impact (e.g., air pollution) that produced the welfare effect (e.g., crop damage). In summary, each technology produces environmental effects that affect society in different ways. With the exception of the CO2 climatic effects from coal combustion, all the technologies appear to be equivalent with regard to environmental welfare problems. RESOURCES/MACROECONOMIC/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES Three areas important in the comparative assessment of energy technologies are resource requirements, macroeconomic effects, and institutional considerations. The scenarios (alternative energy futures) developed as part of the SPS Concept Development and Evaluation Program were used to provide another perspective on the land and water resources required; macroeconomic results followed from the scenario development activity. The institutional analysis, completed before development of the scenarios, focused on regulatory issues. Land requirements were first derived on a normalized basis for each of the energy technologies. The land requirements (in km^ per 1,000 MW of installed capacity) used in this study are: 10 for coal, 3 for light water reactor (LWR), 2 for liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR), 20 for terrestrial photovoltaic (TPV), 35 for SPS, and 2 for fusion. These amounts include (where appropriate) land requirements for resource and fuel extraction, processing, the power plant site itself, and waste disposal. Transmission requirements are not included because they have been shown to be about the same for all technologies, particularly in view of studies indicating that 60 SPS rectennas can be sited within 300 miles of a load center. Scenario- driven results shown in Fig. 4 for the 1980 to 2030 time period indicate that total land use (excluding transmission) increases 0-500% without SPS and 100-900% with SPS, whereas electrical energy demand increases 75-850% by the year 2030. The land required by SPS alone in the year 2030 is 2-6 times the total land in use for electrical generation in the United States today. The availability of additional land for power plant sites has not been determined.
Fig. 4 Alternative Futures Analysis of Land Requirements The need for large contigious areas, as for SPS rectennas, is a further complicating factor. Water use in m^ x 10^/GW/year, is 22 for coal, 60 for LWR, 22 for LMFBR, 12 for fusion and negligible for TPV and SPS. Total water requirements for the three scenarios, with and without SPS, are shown in Fig. 5. Results indicate that deployment of SPS can save large volumes of water; in scenario CI, SPS saves an amount equal to 40% of the total used in 1980 for baseload electrical generation by coal and nuclear; in scenario UH, the saving is 170% of today's total. Due to large uncertainties in determining the resource/reserve levels for both the United States and the world, the analysis of materials problems was less quantitative than the land and water analyses. A screening methodology included a reliance on imports as a criterion as well as availability and total demand considerations. These screening factors identified gallium as being a material of serious concern. Gallium is used extensively in the GaAlAs solar cell option for SPS. Also of serious concern is tungsten, which is used both in SPS and coal technologies. Net energy analysis shows that the payback period for most of the technologies studied is small (less than 1.5 years). The payback periods for the SPS GaAlAs option, coal, and the nuclear options are about one year, and those for the SPS Si option and TPV (silicon cells) are about 6 and 20 years, respectively. Thus, the GaAlAs design affords SPS with an option that compares favorably with conventional technologies on a net energy basis.
Fig. 5 Alternative Futures Analysis of Annual Water Consumption for Baseload Electricity Generation Macroeconomic analyses included the calculation of changes in GNP for the year 2000 and, in qualitative terms, the effect on inflation due to deployment of the SPS. Using a target GNP of $3.7 trillion (all figures in 1978 dollars) for the year 2000, deployment of 10 GW of SPS power will require $20 to $50 billion of excess investment compared to the least expensive option (coal). This is 10 to 15% of $200 billion, the amount available for financing economic growth of about 2.3% per annum. Compounded to the year 2030, such a reduction would result in a $200 to $500 billion reduction in the target GNP of $7 trillion. If uranium and coal fuel supplies are much more contrained than presently envisioned, then deployment of SPS would reduce consumption of these scarce items and possibly reduce their prices. This could in turn reduce total energy expenditures, as indicated in Table 5. For the UH and UI scenarios, SPS energy costs of about 40-50 mills/kWh would result in a breakeven from the point of view of total energy expenditures. The institutional analysis focused on the regulatory aspects of electricity generation by coal, nuclear, and the SPS. The technologies were characterized relative to one another, and justifications for regulation, the level of governmental responsibility, and the cost of regulation were considered. Studies estimate that the annual cost of regulating the nuclear industry is about $6 billion, versus about $3.4 billion for coal. In view of the changing regulatory environment (e.g., the decentralization movement and the growth of power on the local level), SPS regulatory costs may look more like nuclear regulatory costs than coal regulatory costs. Regulatory costs
Table 5 Net Change in Annual Energy Expenditures Due to the SPS (1978 $ x 109) for SPS could be significant compared to SPS investment costs, particularly in a low deployment rate (3.3 GW/yr) scenario. CONCLUSIONS This comparative assessment analyzed each technology issue by issue (side-by-side analysis), and then evaluated the technologies, given different post-2000 economic climates and the economic trajectories that would lead to those climates (alternative futures analysis). Conclusions were formed separately for these two types of analyses and are summarized in the following tables. Tables 6 to 11 summarize the comparison among the seven technologies issue-by-issue. Comparisons are described in terms of key issues, uncertainty about the understanding of those issues and a concluding comparative statement that cuts across all technologies for that issue area. Table 12 describes the six mixes of technologies that were analyzed in terms of meeting the energy demand for two different scenarios (i.e., UH and Cl). Tables 13 and 14 summarize comparative conclusions about mixes of technologies from an energy supply/demand perspective. In these tables, the comparative analyses are described briefly, issue by issue, for each of the energy supply alternatives.
Table 6 Cost and Performance: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions
Table 7 Health and Safety: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions
Table 8 Environmental Welfare: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions
Table 9 Resources: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions
Table 10 Econotnic/Societal Issues: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions
Table 11 Institutional Issues: Key Issues, Uncertainties, and Comparative Conclusions
Table 12 Energy Supply Options Si Conventional Conventional coal combustion and combined-cycle plants and nuclear LWRs with advancement to LMFBRs make up this supply option. Coal and uranium would be continually used in conventional systems until they are replaced by improved systems, e.g., combined-cycle coal gasification and the LMFBR. S2 Conventional fuel This supply option includes the use of coal, with utilization plus SPS nuclear only in the form of the LWR, replaced by the SPS when fuel prices for uranium either rise too high or the resource is depleted. S3 Conventional fuel This option utilizes coal, with nuclear in the sources plus fusion form of both the LWR and LMFBR, and replaces these systems with fusion. If fusion is not available when the LWR fuels are running low, the LMFBR would be utilized until fusion technology is available. S4 This is the same as Supply Option 1. S5 Conventional systems Same as Supply Option 2. plus SPS. S6 Conventional systems In this case since the energy demand is expected plus fusion to be low, only nuclear LWRs would be used until fusion would be available. Since the energy demand is low, it is expected that the uranium fuel would last until fusion technology could be applied.
Table 13 Evaluation of Energy Supply Options S1-S3 for Demand Scenario UH - Unconstrained, High Demand Low because costs of conventional sources remain relatively lowest of all scenarios . Possible impact of further coal use and nuclear safeguard issues. Welfare: CO2 could become a problem after 2000. Nonrenewable fuel supplies continue to be depleted. Continued development of coal mining and technology in western states. Minimal impact because role of regulatory bodies will remain relatively constant. Higher energy cost than Si because of depleting uranium stocks and the introduction of a new technology. Many new health issues associated with SPS, but conventional problems decreased. Potential CO2 impact is not changed because of other uses; several new SPS issues. Increased land consumption, continued uranium depletion. New technology will affect the economy because of large investments; western states could go through a boom/bust cycle with cost. A whole new set of interactions will develop because of SPS. Higher than Si; slightly lower than S2. New radiation problems. Same as Si. Same as Si. Similar to S2 but probably not as great. Nuclear fission regulatory bodies will probably handle fusion. Electrical energy demand is high because coal and nuclear energy remain relatively cheap. Regulatior impositions will not get much larger. Conservation and sub- sitution do not penetrate to a great degree. Si - Conventional Coal (Conv. and CG/CC) Nuclear (LWR, LMFBR) Continued use of conventional sources with improved systems LMFBR could provide energy for many years. S2 ~ Conventional + SPS (Coal, LWR, SPS) Conventional systems will be used until the SPS is implemented. S3 - Conventional + Fusion (Coal, LWR, LMBFR, and Fus ion) Conventional systems including some form of breeder until fusion technology is available.
Table 14 Evaluation of Energy Supply Options S4-S6 for Demand Scenario CI - Constrained, Intermediate Demand Electrical energy demand is low because regulations and fuel prices have driven up the cost of energy. Conservation and other supply substitu- t ions are selected, thereby lessening the demand for electrical energy. High because of restrained conventional sources. Better than Si because of decreased use of conventional technologies. Not much different than Si. Depleting fuel supplies but at a low rate. Moderate development of western states. Strong regulation. Lower than S4 because replacement technology will hold down fuel prices somewhat. Same as S2. Same as S3. Land consumption, depleting fuels. Same as S2 but boom/bust would be less. Same as S2. Lower than S4, maybe less than S5. New radiation problems. Same as Si. Same as Si. Similar to S2 but diminished boom/bust. Same as S3.
REFERENCES FOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. SPS CDEP Reference System Report, U.S. Department of Energy and NASA, DOE/ER-0023 (Oct. 1978). 2. Wolsko, T., et al., A Methodology for the Comparative Assessment of the Satellite Power System (SPS) and Alternative Technologies, Argonne National Laboratory Report for U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/ER-0051 (Jan. 1980). 3. Wolsko, T., et al., A Preliminary Assessment of the Satellite Power System (SPS) and Six Other Technologies, Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL/AA-20 (April 1980). 4. Ridker, R., and W. Watson, To Choose a Future, Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc. (in press). 5. Solar Power Satellite System Definition Study, Executive Summary, Boeing Aerospace Corporation, D180-25969-1 (June 1980). 6. Piland, R.O., Reference System Characterization and Cost Overview, DOE/ NASA Program Review (April 1980). 7. Woodcock, G.R., Solar Power Satellites and the Evolution of Space Technology, presented at the 1980 Meeting and Technical Display of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Baltimore, Md. (May 1980).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==