Energy Situation in Cache Valley

8/13/2019 Energy Situation in Cache Valley

1/22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of this project was to identify a single

energy source for Cache Valley, which would come online in

the year 2025 and would operate for the following fifty years.

The requirements for this energy source were that it had to be

located within 50 miles of Cache Valley, and would be able to

handle the power load necessary to meet the valleys power

demand.

The Energy Information Administration reported theuse of electricity for Utah in June 2013 was 3,549 GWh per

month [1]. Using population as a guide for electricity use, the

Cache County population from the 2010 census was 112,656,

4.12% of the state population. The Utah Foundation estimates

a projected population for the state of Utah to be 6.84 million,

a 146% increase [2]. Based on current population percentage,

Cache County power usage would be 3,549 GWh*4.12%=

146.2188 GWh per month. The Estimated need for power in

Cache Valley in 2060 would then be

(3,549*146%+3,549)*4.12%= 359.698 GWh per month.

The selection of the best energy source for generating

electrical power for Cache Valley was a difficult andcontroversial decision. Each type of power plant has both

good and bad things to offer. As a team we analyzed

Geothermal, Solar Photovoltaic, Nuclear, Coal, and Natural

Gas power plants. For each type of power plant we took the

following into consideration: renewability, energy density and

efficiency, applicable societal views and political regulations

that would govern the plant, overall cost and economical

feasibility of implementation, any subsequent environmental

impact, sustainability based on the resources available,

geographical feasibility within the 50 mile radius from Cache

Valley, and any available infrastructure that may already be in

place.

We created the matrix shown in Table 1, which gives

an accurate representation of the categories that were analyzed

and each sources respective assigned value for each category.

The sources were evaluated on a scale from 0 to 2, with 0

being great relative to the other sources and 2 being terrible

compared to the other sources. As a team, we then realized

that not every category was equal in importance; therefore,

each category was then weighted according to its relevance to

the objective at hand, with those weights shown in Table 2.

The weighted ratings of each category were then added up for

each energy source to come up with a final value to represent

our evaluation of the sources, with the lowest of the ratingsrepresenting which energy source was chosen to be best for

implementation in Cache Valley.

Based on the information provided by the execution

of the matrix, we came to the conclusion that the best source

of power generation for Cache Valley would be natural gas.

Although natural gas was not the best in every category, it had

the lowest cumulative score.

Natural gas is not at all a renewable source of energy.

However, it was determined that renewability was a less

important factor due to the objectives very small time frame .

Natural gas is much more energy dense than

geothermal and photovoltaic energy sources and is on a very

similar scale to coals energy density. In fact, depending on

the state that the gas is in, energy density comparisons of coa

and natural gas can be argued both in favor and against each

of the energy sources. In contrast, nuclear power is much more

energy dense than natural gas and is a great energy source

when only considering its energy density. With regard to

efficiencies, natural gas power plants tend to be more efficient

than the rest of the sources due to the common use ofcombined cycle plants, whereas other sources tend to use less

efficient steam cycles.

Natural gas has come into a bad light due to issues

with fracking. Many of these issues are now minimized or

eliminated due to technology advances. Emission regulations

also affect natural gas, though such regulations affect coa

burning much more. While society tends to have very positive

views of solar and geothermal sources, nuclear power tends to

be painted in a bad light due to waste management necessities

and occasional accidents. These issues were factored in

according to likely views within the valley.

Upon comparing overall costs of building different

plants, we found that natural gas was likely the cheapest with

geothermal second. Despite coal being a cheap fuel source

start-up costs and regulation fees made it more expensive. On

a larger time frame, nuclear would be a cheap option, but the

time frame considered kept it from being cheap. Photovoltaic

power generation may someday become cheaper, but for now

it was considered a more expensive source.

Environmental impacts go hand in hand with existing

regulations. Natural gas emits some hazardous gases, and coa

emits about twice as much of the same gases. Nuclear power

has radioactive waste to always keep in check. Solar and

geothermal sources seem to have little environmental impact.

With regards to sustainability, theres plenty of coa

and natural gas within reasonable distance to sustain the

necessary plant, and nuclear power would easily sustain such

with very little fuel. We found that there is likely an

insufficient source for geothermal generation, and solar

generation would take a huge amount of land and cells in

order to generate enough power.

Due to lack of sunlight, solar power was ruled

impractical for Cache Valley. Likewise, because of an

insufficient source, geothermal was deemed geographically

impractical. Coal, natural gas, and nuclear power generation

were all have a common limitation in Cache Valley: water

source. As such, it was found that Bear Lake would be the

most likely water source for these plants.

Logan has a relatively small natural gas plant that

could serve as a good model for any infrastructure put into

place. Cache Valley also has an extremely small solar farm

that could serve as such a model. Based on the information we

found and our matrix application, we concluded that natura

gas is the best energy source for Cache Valley.


2/22

NUCLEAR ENERGY

RenewabilityThere is a large debate over whether or not Nuclear

power is considered renewable. Many environmental groups

are fundamentally opposed to the notion that nuclear power is

a renewable form of energy on the grounds that it produces

harmful waste byproducts and relies on extractive industries to

procure fuel like uranium.

The nuclear industry and pro-nuclear officials from

countries including France have been trying to brand the

technology as renewable, on the grounds that it produces little

or no greenhouse gases. Branding nuclear as renewable could

also enable nuclear operators to benefit from some of the same

subsidies and friendly policies offered to clean energies like

wind, solar and biomass.[1]

Energy Density & EfficiencyThe area where Nuclear power blows everything else

out of the water is energy density. To put this into perspective

just one uranium fuel pellet, roughly the size of the tip of an

adults little finger, contains the same amount of energy as

17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149

gallons of oil.[2]

One of the primary advantages that nuclear energy

sources have over chemical energy competitors is energy

density. Using our current, rather primitive technology that

essentially obtains nuclear energy from the 0.7% fraction of

uranium that is easily fissioned with a single, low energy

neutron, uranium contains about 16,000 times as much energy

per unit weight as coal. The World Nuclear Association

presented an article that shows how efficient nuclear power

can be. The USA has 100 nuclear power reactors in 31 states

operated by 30 different power companies. Since 2001, these

plants have achieved an average capacity factor of over 90%

generating up to 807 billion kWh per year and accounting for

20% of total electricity generated.[6]

TABLE 1: ENERGY SOURCE DECISION MATRIX

TABLE 2: WEIGHTED FACTORS FOR DECISION MATRIX

TABLE 3: ENERGY DENSITIES


3/22

Societal Views & Political Regulations

Currently the U.S. has established different agencies

to regulate Nuclear projects. The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is an independent agency of the United

States government that was established by the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974, first beginning operations on

January 19, 1975. As one of two successor agencies to the

United States Atomic Energy Commission, the NRC was

charged with overseeing reactor safety and security, reactor

licensing and renewal, radioactive material safety, and spent

fuel management.

Cost

For a typical 1,000 MWe BWR or PWR, the

approximate cost of fuel for one reload (replacing one third of

the core) is about $40 million, based on an 18-month refueling

cycle. The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2012

was 0.75 cents / kWh.

Because nuclear plants refuel every 18-24 months,

they are not subject to fuel price volatility like natural gas andoil power plants.

Environmental Impact

There is a very diverse view on the environmental

impact of a nuclear power plant. The question has to be asked

what the most important aspect of the environment to protect

really is. But, what does most important really mean? Is one

persons opinion going to match the next, I think not. Nuclear

power has been presented as providing net environmental

benefits. Specifically, nuclear power makes no contribution to

global warming through the emission of carbon dioxide.

Nuclear power also produces no notable sulfur oxides,

nitrogen oxides, or particulates. When nuclear power is

produced, nothing is burned in a conventional sense. Heat is

produced through nuclear fission, not oxidation. Nuclear

power does produce spent fuels of roughly the same mass and

volume as the fuel that the reactor takes in. These spent fuels

are kept within the reactors fuel assemblies, thus unlike fossil

fuels, which emit stack gasses to the ambient environment,

and solid wastes at nuclear power plants are contained

throughout the generation process. No particulates or ash are

emitted.

Waste from a nuclear plant is primarily a solid waste,spent fuel, and some process chemicals, steam, and heated

cooling water. Such waste differs from a fossil fuel plants

waste in that its volume and mass are small relative to the

electricity produced. The waste is under the control of the

plant operators

and subsequent waste owners or managers, including the

Department of Energy, until it is disposed. Nuclear waste also

differs from fossil fuels in that spent fuel is radioactive while

only a minute share of the waste from a fossil plant is

radioactive. Solid waste from a nuclear plant or from a fossil

fuel plant can be toxic or damaging to the environment, often

in ways unique to the particular category of plant and fuel.

Waste from the nuclear power plant is managed to the point of

disposal, while a substantial part of the fossil fuel waste

especially stack gases and particulates are unmanaged after

release from the plant.[5] Figure 1 is a poll that was given by

CNN to get a feeling of the overall feelings towards Nuclear

Power.

Economical Feasibility

The price to build a Nuclear Plant is very high. A big

part of the reason behind this is because of the safety factors

that are involved. The current theoretical overnight cost o

constructing a nuclear power plant is about 2 to 2.5 billion

dollars for a plant with two conventional reactors and

generating about two gigawattsa nominally sized plant. This

compares favorably with fossil fuel plant. Westinghouse has

estimated the cost of four power plants, each containing two

AP1000 reactors and generating more than 2 gigawatts each to

be about 8 billion US dollars. General Electric has stated tha

their newESBWR design could reduce costs to below $1000

per kilowatt of installed capacity.

However, in practice the costs can be substantially

more. The notorious construction ofWatts Bar Unit 2 nuclear

station was an on-again-off-again saga of petitions, hearings

and other typical government boondoggles which resulted in

over a decade from ground breaking to completion of the

reactor and cost billions more than was anticipated. This is not

as unusual as it might seem. Since the 1970s numerous

nuclear power plants have gone over budget, and plans for

plants have been shelved after years and many millions o

dollars invested in planning and licensing expenses. The two

billion dollar figure for a typical plant is the cost if things goas planned and regulatory expenses are limited to the standard

approval costs. This is often not the case.[4]

As I mentioned the safety factors and regulations

before, over half of the cost of nuclear power plan

construction is directly related to the cost of licensing

approval and other bureaucratic expenses. For example, a

recent proposal for plant construction by NuStar is expected to

cost 520 million dollars for licensing. In other words if

everything went smoothly here in Cache Valley, we would

have to drop half a billion dollars before we even broke

ground on the new plant.

Sustainability

As you know currently in Cache Valley there are not

any Uranium mines. Therefore all the uranium that the plan

would use would have to be imported. If the Nuclear Energy

Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planets

economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run

more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. Two

technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself

Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if

the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Reorganization_Act_of_1974http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Reorganization_Act_of_1974http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Atomic_Energy_Commissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overnight_costhttp://www.energetics.com/pdfs/nuclear/ap1000.pdfhttp://www.energetics.com/pdfs/nuclear/ap1000.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESBWRhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Stationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Stationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESBWRhttp://www.energetics.com/pdfs/nuclear/ap1000.pdfhttp://www.energetics.com/pdfs/nuclear/ap1000.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overnight_costhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Atomic_Energy_Commissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Reorganization_Act_of_1974http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Reorganization_Act_of_1974http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government


4/22

extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5

billion metric tons of uraniuma 60,000-year supply at

present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors,

which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less

than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs.Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000

years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.[3]

Geographical Feasibility

The land needed to build a power plant large enough

to support Cache Valley is no problem at all. Based on

existing power plants that are currently in operation the

amount of land that would be needed to build a plant large

enough to support the demand of Cache Valley is roughly 120

acres. From a land use perspective, multi-reactor nuclear

power plants like Palo Verde in Arizona can at a single,

confined locationproduce electricity in quantities that wouldrequire over 60 square miles of photovoltaic panels, and

anywhere from 15 to over 180 square miles of wind turbines.

And the electrical energy from nuclear power plants is

available when needed, not just when the sun is shining or the

wind is blowing. Only fossil fuels, hydropower and

geothermal energypowered by radioactive decay of uranium

far beneath Earths surface, offer the same 24/7 availability.[2]

Available Infrastructure

Currently there is no available infrastructure

therefore everything would have to be built from the ground

up. This is where the current problems lies. . Since the 1970s

numerous nuclear power plants have gone over budget, and

plans for plants have been shelved after years and many

millions of dollars invested in planning and licensing

expenses. The two billion dollar figure for a typical plant isthe cost if things go as planned and regulatory expenses are

limited to the standard approval costs. This is often not the

case.[4]

As I mentioned the safety factors and regulations

before, over half of the cost of nuclear power plan

construction is directly related to the cost of licensing

approval and other bureaucratic expenses. For example, a

recent proposal for plant construction by NuStar is expected to

cost 520 million dollars for licensing. In other words if

everything went smoothly here in Cache Valley, we would

have to drop half a billion dollars before we even broke

ground on the new plant.

COAL

Renewability

Coal is not considered one of the renewable energyresources. Its primary source of energy comes from burningcoal. Coal is fossil fuel, or a mineralized form of carbon so itsenergy is released from burning and cant be renewed. Forthis reason, one of the main concerns for coal energy is that itis a limited resources. Mined coal is currently the larges

FIGURE 1: CNN POLL ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER


5/22

source of electricity generation worldwide and is beingproduced from the current coal reserves located worldwide.While these reserves are large, they are finite and cant be

regenerated quickly. Being a fossil fuel infers a fossilizationtime scale of millions of years to produce coal like we usetoday.

Energy Density & Efficiency

There are a wide variety of types of coals used forenergy production. With the variety of coal minerals, there is arange from approximately 13-30 Mega joules per kilogram forenergy efficiency. This is slightly less than natural gas butconsidered a rich energy source. The related efficiencies arealso derived from a range of energy production cycles. Withthe burning of coal, a simple steam cycle can generate powerwith a thermodynamic efficiency of 35 percent. This can beincreased with higher production temperatures along withother procedures being researched. European companies areresearching the design of combined cycles that use coal togenerate power with upwards to 49 percent for a net electricefficiency.


While there are benefits economically to burning coalfor energy generation, environmental concerns have drawngovernment agencies to create restrictions on coal that make itmore difficult to use for inexpensive energy. Theseenvironmental impacts discussed more closely in thefollowing section are the underlying source for politicalregulations on the use of coal. The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), is the government program at the forefront ofthese developing restrictions and most recently have createdadditional rules for the use of coal burning. Over thirty powerplants mostly driven by coal burning in more than twelve

different states are being driven to closure with theintroduction of two new rules that the EPA announced in2011. These power plants that have been running for decadesand who currently provided power for over twenty millionhouseholds are being pulled down with the new restrictions.While most of these are outside of Utah, the numbers are ofsignificant interest to the coal production and use locally.

Both of the rules being pushed by the EPA areregarding emission issues with environmental and healthconcerns. The first is in protection of states that aredownwind to some of these dirty plants. The second is

actually setting the first standards on the toxic chemicals in the

emissions, included Mercury as just one of them. In Table 4,chemicals and the changes being introduced by the newstandards are shown.

TABLE 4: DECREASE IN CHEMICAL POLLUTANTS IN COALBURNING EMISSIONS FROM NEW EPA RULES

Chemical Pollutant % Decrease in Emission

Mercury 90%

Nitrogen Oxide 50%

Sulfur Dioxide 70%

While most of the plants that would be shut downand affected most are on average 50 years, the impact of thepolitical regulations will also impact the societal views. Thereis representative example in the energy production alternativeof nuclear. With the tightening restrictions placed on nuclearpower generation options, the common people while nounderstanding very much become very opposed to theperceived risk and concerns of the energy source. With theincreasing regulations being applied to burning fossil fuels itcan be projected that societal views will be decreased. If ifollows historical patterns, coal will become more difficult toefficiently use regardless of how economically advantageousor convenient it is. The largest challenge for coal as a realisticenergy source for Cache Valley in the future is the politicalregulations due to health concerns and the environmentaimpact. This challenge becomes even more emphasized withthe local example of Logan City in Cache Valley

Interesting to coal energy are the local constraints inCache Valley. While coal burning is common, it would havemore severe effects locally do to the inversion around LoganThis is discussed in more detail under the environmentaimpact section. Due to the inversion and air pollution effects

in the valley, city officials are putting tighter restrictions onemissions. If they are already putting restriction on woodburning and vehicle emissions it doesnt seem plausible to

suggest coal burning for energy production housed inside othe valley. One further example of the local societamovement in this context is Utah State Universitys actions to

replace a coal fired heating plant with natural gas and usingpublic transportation with cleaner fuels.

Cost

The cost in terms of $/kW hour is reported as 2250dollars per kilowatt. Federal spending in this field according

to the EIA is 290 million for tax expenditures, 574 million forresearch and development, and 69 million for federaelectricity support. The use of coal faces barriers like anyother energy source. Although coal would be the cheapeselectricity option in the U.S., it cannot meet air-pollutionstandards as mentioned in addressing political regulations andsocietal views.


Coal has been demonstrated to have negative impactson the environment. Currently it is the second largest source inthe US for carbon dioxide emissions. The byproducts of

burning coal include a variety of chemicals that add to acidrain and climate change. A more specific impact related toCache Valley is the inversion that traps the emissions into theair and cause unhealthy breathing conditions.

According to an article published on euractive.comenvironmentalists argue that although clean coal may beviable in 20 years it is still currently the dirtiest of all of thefossil fuels. The IGCC (Integrated gasification combinedcycle) uses coal while decreasing emissions. The barrier hereis getting companies to buy the power plants because theprocess has no heritage yet. Clean Coal technologies that arebeing developed would be critical in the development of a coa


6/22

energy plant in the Valley. Clean coal technologies being

developed include several technologies and processes to bothdecrease emissions and environmental impact as well asimprove the efficiency of coal energy. Some of these includethe following:

Chemically washing minerals and impurities fromcoal

Gasification Treating gasses with steam to remove sulfur dioxide Carbon capture and storage Improving calorific value (efficiency of conversion

into electricity)

Carbon capture and sequestration (CSS) is the latest cleancoal technology according to the DOE. The compressedliquid is planned to put in the ground. Potentially into depletednatural gas fields. Still have worries of leaks, watercontamination, and induced geological instability. CSS is alsocurrently very expensive.

The worlds first clean coal plant was completed in

September of 2008 in Spremberg, Germany, owned by acompany named Vattenfall. The plant is called SchwarzePumpe power station. What this plant does is capture the CO2and other gasses that are negative emitters and compressesthem into a liquid. It is not considered a final solution to the

emission problem but an achievable step in the currenttimeline. It is a goodexample of solutions that can make coala more desirable option for Cache Valleys energy resource.

Clean coal technology is the only practical option tohave coal as an energy source for Cache Valley, whichbecomes the focus of this section. The strong inversions thathappen in Cache Valley have already created health concernswith air pollution. With the restrictions being placed locallyon emissions and clean air, it becomes more challenging toconsider a coal burning plant as a long term energy sourceeven if it was cleaned coal.

Sustainability

With the goal of generating energy for Cache Valleyfor a 50 year time period in, coal presents no concerns. Thepotential of this source to meet future energy demand hasseveral aspects. While geopolitical instability createscomplications in oil and gas prices, coal is returning as acheap option. Already, demands for coal are projected to beincreasing in the future. It does have benefits. TheInternational Energy Agency (IEA) reported in 2007 that theworld reserves contained enough coal for 180 years of supplyat current consumption rates. Deposits are evenly distributedaround the globe, unlike other sources such as oil. Coal canbe stored, used quickly, and meet energy needs when demands

increase to a peak. Green living Answers also recognizes theoption of coal energy for an alternative solution with rising oiprices. Figure 3 shows the trend of coal use will continue inthe future.

FIGURE 3: ELECTRICITY GENERATION BY FUEL IN 2010, 2020,2035 (BILLION KW HOURS)

FIGURE 2: PIE CHART OF PLACES ?????


7/22

An important assumption made in considering thesustainability of coal for an energy source is that it is aimingto meet the needs of this project. That means the quantifiedenergy requirement of Cache Valley and inside the noted timeframe of 50 years. While coal is sustainable for theserequirements with large reserves worldwide, it is a finiteresource and will necessarily not be sustainable on the greaterscale of energy demands in the future.


According to the Bureau of Land Management, 95percent of Utahs current electricity generation comes from

coal. This is no coincidence since Utah produces largereservoirs of coal for mining. In 2005 alone, there was 24.5million tons of coal produced with a sales value of over $400million. Looking at the geographical feasibility and impact ofactually mining the coal, Emery County serves as a goodexample. In Emery County, there are ten operating minescovering 90K acres. All of the mines in Utah are undergroundmines with little surface disturbance. Central Utah reserveshave been mined over 100 years and expect to only lastanother 15 with the current consumption rate. BLM expects

with the approaching depletion of these mines that there wouldbe an expansion to other coal fields in Utah. If Cache Valleywas one of these places they could potentially have generatedroyalty revenues of > 25 million annually exporting inaddition to producing their own energy. Figure 4shows a mapof Utahs current coal mines.

Currently, the closest mined coal to Logan insideCache Valley is approximately 100 miles at the Lost Creekmine field. Figure (?) also shows that an actual coal field inCache Valley wouldnt be feasible since there is no coal.

From this geological survey, it doesnt look like coal couldactually be mined out of Cache Valley.

The closest location with underlying coal reservesappears to be in Summit County. This would create the coaproduction to be approximately 100 miles from Cache ValleyIt would need to be imported. We would want to look at acoal burning plant for the coal imported to actually beproduced in the Valley. The only option would be to importhe coal from other coal fields, most likely in Utah for thiscase. This means that the geographic characteristics of CacheValley would not support the mining of coal.


Currently, the available infrastructure is not a benefitin Cache Valley for a coal burning plant. It has previouslybeen demonstrated that the coal wouldnt be mined in the

Valley but imported from other coal fields located in UtahWith this assumption, it would only be the coal burning plantthat would be housed in the valley. The benefit to coalalthough there isnt an existing infrastructure, is that industry

has been burning coal for energy production for a long time

There is a lot of heritage and practice so the initialdevelopment of the required infrastructure would be a trivialproblem. To consider the infrastructure that would berequired for a power plant the right size in Cache Valley, othercoal fired plants can be review in Utah. The IntermountainPower Plant in Delta UT will be used to model theinfrastructure for a similar plant in Cache Valley.

The power plant in Delta consists of two units tharun General Electric compound steam turbines with boilershoused in three hundred foot houses. There is also a singleseven hundred foot tower than can be seen in the figure whereemissions are sourced from. Each unit has a power generation

capability of roughly 950 MW for a total of 1900 MW fromthe plant. According to the Intermountain Power Agency, theplan generated over twelve million MW hours of electricityeach year. With one million MW hours of electricitygenerated in a month, it would be sufficient to meet the .3(Million MW hours) for the projected energy requirement ofCache Valley in 2060. A similar facility would be therequirements of the project but would a construction cost of4.5 billion dollars would be anticipated for the development ofthe infrastructure.

While this appears to be a possible solution for thecoal fired energy plant infrastructure in Cache Valley, is stilldoesnt seem to be the direction motivated for the future. The

intermountain Power Plan is projecting to have completelyswitched over to natural gas for its energy source by 2025.

In conclusion, the coal energy source does not appearto be a solution for electricity generation demands in thefuture for Cache Valley. While it is currently a common andinexpensive source for energy now, the political regulationsand public views are quickly making it an unlikely solution forthe future. Even with the clean coal solutions for the futureand the availability of coal reserves, restrictions and inversionsin Cache valley make it more difficult to consider burningwith any type of emissions is the local area.

FIGURE 4: UTAH COAL FIELDS


8/22

FIGURE 5: UTAHS AVAILABLE COAL RESOURCES IN 2006

FIGURE 6: INTERMOUNTAIN POWER COAL PLANT IN DELTA, UTAH


9/22

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

Renewability

Geothermal energy is the heat from the Earth. It's

clean and sustainable. Resources of geothermal energy range

from the shallow ground to hot water and hot rock found a few

miles beneath the Earth's surface, and down even deeper to the

extremely high temperatures of molten rock called magma.

Almost everywhere, the shallow ground or upper 10 feet ofthe Earth's surface maintains a nearly constant temperature

between 50 and 60F (10 and 16C) [1].

Geothermal energy only uses water and heat from the

Earth. The Earth is always emitting vast amounts of heat, and

contains large amounts of water. The only issue with

sustainability is the availability of fresh water to re-inject the

reservoir and to run the power plant. As long as there is

sufficient water to re-inject into the geothermal reservoir,

geothermal energy is completely renewable.


Geothermal energy main negative social impacts are

on water sources, impacts on cultural heritage sites, on

landscape and recreational areas, noise, and ground subsidence

and earthquakes [2]. Geothermal plants have many of the

same regulations as other power sources, but is does not have

many social regulations. There is relatively little political talk

about geothermal energy compared to other sources, even

though it is an electric source that has been used since 1911 in

Italy. The government actually does provide incentives for

building geothermal plants, because of its renewability and

low emissions.

Cost

At California's The Geysers, which has been

operational since 1960, power is sold at $0.03 to $0.035 per

kilowatt-hour. A new geothermal plant would probably charge

about $0.05 per kilowatt-hour, though some plants can charge

more during peak demand periods. While the initial costs of

drilling and installing geothermal power plants are high,

operation and maintenance costs are low -- and there are no

fuel costs at all, which keeps the price of the energy from

fluctuating [3]. This makes geothermal energy desirable once

a well has been drilled, because the energy costs are low and

very stable. The price is stable, because there is no fuelrequired to power the electric generators. The only way to

make the price change would be an increasing cost in water.

Environmental Impacts

Geothermal energy uses fluids that are drawn from

the earth that can contain pollutant gases. These gases can be

carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ammonia.

Existing geothermal plants emit an average of 400 kg of

carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity. The

hydrogen sulfide will change into sulfur dioxide and sulfuric

acid. Emissions of sulfur dioxide range between 0-.35

lbs/MWh and 0-88.8 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide. Geotherma

plants also emit small amounts of mercury.

Geothermal plants also can use between 0 and 5

gallons of freshwater per megawatt hour depending on the

type of geothermal plant. This is much less than the 361

gallons per megawatt hour for natural gas plants. Geotherma

plants use water as either a heat sink or to replenish the

reservoir that is used by the plant as a heat source.

Combustion of bituminous coal emits about 900

kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour, and

even the relatively clean-burning natural gas releases more

than 300 kilograms per megawatt-hour under these conditions

In contrast, geothermal driven power plants are much cleaner

releasing about 120 kilograms per megawatt-hour. Binary

geothermal power plants emit zero carbon dioxide, because

geothermal fluids are never vented to the atmosphere [4]

Figure 1 shows the comparison of CO 2 emissions of other

energy sources to geothermal energy.

A typical geothermal facility uses 404 square metersof land per gigawatt-hour, while a coal facility uses 3632

square meters per gigawatt-hour [5]. Geothermal plants can

also cause subsidence, the sinking of land due to lower

underground pressures. Subsidence can be abated by using

injection technology to maintain pressure and longevity of the

heat source. Geothermal plants have also caused some

amounts of induced seismicity. Geothermal production and

injection use have caused low-magnitude earthquakes tha

usually cannot be detected by humans.

FIGURE 7: CO2


10/22

Land areas required for geothermal developments

involving power plants and wells vary with the local reservoir

conditions and the desired power outputs. A well field to

support a 100 megawatt geothermal development (for

generating electricity) might require about 200 to 2,000

hectares. However, while supporting the power plant, this

land still can be used for other purposes, for example livestock

grazing, once the power plant and associated piping from

wells are completed [6].

Geothermal plants are sometimes criticized for their

placement that causes damage to recreational areas. That is

because many of the hot spots that are useful for power

generation are used for recreation such as hot springs or are

popular geysers visited by tourists. This controversy was

observed at Californias The Geysers plant. These social and

environmental impacts can be minimized by not using

recreational areas or hot geothermal areas that have surface

outlets visited by tourists.

Economical Feasibility

The lowest cost of geothermal energy could be $3400

per KWh installed. 65% of the total costs for geothermal

energy come in the first capital investment for drilling and

installation. A typical well that can support 4.5 Megawatts

costs about $10 million to drill and have a 20% failure rate.

Geothermal energy costs between 4.5-30 cents per KWh

depending on size of the plant, the depth to be drilled, and the

temperature at that depth [7]. This makes geothermal energy

somewhat risky for Cache Valley, because of the high upfront

cost and the high failure rate.

Sustainability

Geothermal energy is considered a non-renewable

renewable. Geothermal resources are not infinite, if resources

are used faster than they are replenished. Steam decline can

happen when used on a direct dry steam or flash steam cycles.

The reservoir can become sustainable if direct injection is

used or if the power plant uses a binary cycle, which does not

only uses the reservoir to heat another line of water. Using a

binary cycle does not extract any of the reservoir water, which

decreases the need for direct injection to keep the site

sustainable [8]. Since the binary cycle is a closed-loop

system, it is also desirable because of having virtually no

emissions.Geographical Feasibility

The closest hot geothermal site to Logan is the

Crystal (Madsen) Hot Springs, which is located in Box Elder

County 2 kilometers north of Honeyville. Figure 8 shows the

location of Crystal Hot Springs in relation to Cache County.

There springs flow from fractured Paleozoic rocks at

temperatures between 49.5C and 57C (121F and 135F).

The Hot Springs is currently being used as a recreation area

that uses water from a nearby cold spring 11C (52F), along

with water from the hot spring to fill a 1.14 million liter

(300,000 gallon) pool.

Dissolved constituents of the thermal water are the

highest of any spring in Utah with TDS (Total Dissolved

Solids) values above 46,000 mg/L. Over 90 percent of the ions

in solution are sodium and chloride. In addition to high TDS

values, the springs reportedly contain elevated levels of

radium (220 g/L) and uranium (1.5 g/L)

Geothermometry suggest equilibration temperatures near150C (300F), although these values might be questionable

given the high TDS of the spring waters [9].

Infrastructure

The Crystal (Madsen) Hot Springs are attractive

logistically because it has been operating commercially for 75

years. Figure 3 shows the location of Crystal Hot Spring

within the state of Utah that shows other geothermal hot spots

This gives ready access to roads and transmission lines

There are other spots close and within Cache County, but

Crystal Hot Springs is a relatively hot geothermal site that is

already developed with usable infrastructure. The resource isvirtually unexplored, because only fluids have been sampled

and their analytical results reported. A thermal-gradien

borehole that penetrated 65 m (220 ft) at the site recorded a

bottom-hole temperature of 61C (148F). The land ownership

is of Crystal (Madsen) Hot Springs is private [10].

Geothermal energy is promising for Cache Valley

because of low emissions, low environmental impact, and very

low use of water. It falls short because of high capital costs

and low efficiency requiring a very large plant or multiple

plants to provide enough power for the estimated population in

2075.

PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR ENERGYSolar energy is the most renew source of energy we

are considering. For this proposal we are considering aphotovoltaic system. This system has no fuel costs, requiresno water, and has no emissions. It still requires daylight andweather patterns severely impact its overall energy productionAs more efficient cell become more available we can lessenthis impact.

Energy Density/Efficiency

The Efficiency relies mainly on the type of cell usedThe current efficiencies for competing technologies are in thetable 1. They range from bulk Silicon cells, cells made fromsilicon ingots cut into wafers, and thin film, where silicon isdeposited in a thin layer on a support structure like glass.[4]Amorphous and thin film are constructed in the same mannerhowever the material used in their construction are differentFinally Multi-junction cells are a set of cells layered to convertthe different wavelengths of light to electricity. Currently thereare no large scale M-J power plants planned. Increase demandfor solar has pushed for research into more efficient cells wecan see this increase in efficiencies in figure 1.


11/22

The overall output for the cells can be improved withtracking systems and solar collectors. A tracking system keepsthe panel pointed to directly towards the sun allowing for themaximum amount of light to be collected. Looking at thepower output over the day the system would hit peak output

earlier and stay at there for longer. As for solar collector theyare a parabolic mirror that take in and then focus that lightonto a solar cell. Cells that use solar collector require a heatsinks otherwise their output drops dramatically.

FIGURE 8: GEOTHERMAL HOT SPOT LOCATIONS IN UTAH


12/22

TABLE 4 [4]

Cell Types Efficiencies

Bulk Silicon

Monocrystalline 25%

Polycrystalline 20.5%

Amorphous 9.5%

Thin Film

GaAs 26.1%

Cadmium Indium Gallium Selenide (CIGS) 19.4%

Dye Sensitized 10.4%

Multi-Junction

GalnP/GaAs/Ge 32%

GalnP/GaAs/GalnAs (under 140 suns) 40.8%

Renewability

For solar power the fuel source in terms ofrenewability isnt a problem. Photovoltaic panels take in

photons of light from the sun and produce electricity. Thesuns lifetime is based in billions of years thus the lifetime and

renewability of our project cannot be based on this. Howeverthe panels do degrade over time. The rate at which theydegrade depends on the company that manufactured them.With the industry standard being they retain about 80% oftheir power output capability after 25 year [5]. Figure 2shows

the different major manufactures guaranteed efficiencies overtime.


The U.S. federal government currently has ainvestment tax credit (ITC) for solar projects. The current taxcredit is equal to 30 percent of the projects cost. However, it

will be stepped down to 10 percent after 2016. At thebeginning of construction this project will only have a 10percent cost reduction if started in 2025.

Utah has also enacted a tax credit for renewableenergy systems. The investment tax credit is worth 10% of thereasonable install cost for up to $50,000. This credit can beused on a leased system for no more than seven years. Theused on a leased system for no more than seven years. Theproduction tax credit only covers wind, geothermal andbiomass systems our system doesnt fall under these

categories so we are not eligible [1].

Socially speaking solar is seen as a Clean energyGreen peace and other environmental activist see it as theperfect solution.

Cost

Solar's cost revolves around the manufacture of itscells and operation of the plant. The EIA (ElectricaInformation Administration) as of 2011 has state that theoverall operating cost per kilowatt of solar to be 4.44 cents perkW [8]. This average cost also includes wind and small scaleturbines operations. For the cost per watt in terms instillationand manufacture solar cells are currently around 50 cents perwatt manufactures are pushing for them to at 36 cents by2017[9]. These cost reductions are predicted to come frominnovations like advanced metallization solutions, diamondwire sawing and increased automation.


Photovoltaic systems do not burn fuel in order togenerate energy. The majority of waste generated for thesystem is construction of the site and manufacture of the cellsand modules. For example the manufacture of Thin-film celproduces water waste with heavy metals; Cadmium telluridethin-film solar panel generates cadmium waste waterCalifornian Photovoltaic companies generate from 2007 to2011 generated 46 million pound of waste [3].

Cache Valley would not see a majority of this wasteproduction. The only waste that would be on site would come

from the vehicles used to transport the cells, modules, trackingunits and required infrastructure. This means once completedthe site would have zero emissions. However, depending onplacement of the facility could impact wildlife. Although theproposed site for this installation is currently farmland so thisisnt a large issue. Overall cost would be

Economic Feasibility

The total cost for the power plant would be reduced30 percent if we started before 2016. This is thanks to the ITCstated earlier. After that date price reduction would be 10

FIGURE 9: MANUFACTURERS EFFICIENCIES


13/22

percent. Using the Agua Caliente Solar project as our base, thesample facility would cost 1.8 billion dollars [5]. With thisprojected cost we can assume we would file for a loan fromthe U.S. Department of Energy to pay for the cost that wecould not as a county. For our prototype plant the land requirewould still be 2400 acres the current land for sale of that size

is worth about 3.7 million dollars [2]. We would need to seewhere this land is located and how much it would cost to linkit to the grid.

Geographic Feasibility

Current solar systems require a large amounts of landto produce the same amount of power Coal and Natural Gascan.

Cache County has a large amount of farmland someis currently for sale. Although with the required load of 359.7GWh per month (.4996 GWh) the system to power it with a21.5% (.0067m2/kW) efficiency would be about 816 acres of

solar panels. Currently there is one piece of land for sale thatcan fit the required panels. It's a piece 2414.16 acres worth3.75 million dollars and is currently used for farmland [6].Comparable sites like Agua Caliente Solar Project, the currentlargest photovoltaic power plant, uses 2400 acres to annuallygenerate 626 GWh annually.[6] The facility we require wouldbe larger because of weather conditions.

If we were to use Sunpower's solar concentrators andtracking array as an example (66.94 m2per 12.4 kW) [7], thearea required for the system drops to 661.1acres this does not

include the extra solar cells required to generate power forovernight.

Cache County is in decent area for solar energyFigure 3 show us being in the mid range of solar energyhitting the earth. The best place for the system would be as far

south in the county as we could go. The most ideal would beat the southern end of the state.

Sustainability

Solar is considered a renewable energy source. Theamount of energy that hits the earth in one day is more thanwe could use in 27 years. This resource will continue longafter our project is replaced with a new solar array or fuesource. Weather patterns however will impact overalperformance as clouds and inversion can hinder the amount ofsun that hits the panel.


Solar only requires land and a connection to the gridto work as stated in previous section there is, at this moment intime, one area in Cache County. The property is located a13400 N HIGH CREEK RD, Cove, Utah, 84333. It would belarge enough for the panel system converts and requiredcontrol buildings.

FIGURE 10: BEST RESEARCHED EFFICIENCIES OF SOLAR CELLS


14/22

Conclusion

Considering these factors this system is not

recommended for our power plant proposal. In terms of aprimary power source it would only be able to provide uspower during the day and optimal conditions, no clouds andlow inversion. While its pollution is nonexistent comparedwith other sources. Its fuel sources reliability hinders it frombeing a primary source of electricity. Based on this, it wouldbe better suit as a supplementary power source for CacheCounty.

NATURAL GAS

Renewability

Natural gas, once disregarded as worthless [1], hasfast become an integral portion of the United States energy

scene. The energy sourcecolorless and odorless in its purest

form [1]is very similar to coal with regards to its

whereabouts and origin. Just like coal, natural gas is a fossil

fuel found within the crust of the Earth. The formation of

natural gas occurs over a very long period of time. Biomaterial

once living hundreds of millions of years ago was then

covered by great amounts of land over time, causing the

organic material to be under great pressure. This enormous

amount of pressure applied over these millions of years has

caused these high energy-dense fossil fuels [2]. Therefore,

considering the great length of time required to naturally form

fossil fuels and the fact that the energy released by burning

natural gas becomes non-recoverable, natural gas is

considered completely non-renewable as an energy source.

Energy Density & Efficiency

Compared to energy sources such as geotherma

energy and especially photovoltaic energy, natural gas is a

very energy dense resource. However, natural gas isnt quite

as energy dense as its fossil fuel counterpart of coal, though

the two resources are on a similar scale. With regards to a

nuclear energy source, natural gas doesnt even come close to

generating as much energy per unit mass or volume, with

nuclear energy already being cited to be vastly superior to any

other energy source with regards to energy density.

On a per-unit-mass basis, natural gas generates 53.6

megajoules of energy per kilogram [3]. While it would be easy

to assume this value indicates a better energy performance

compared to coal, when the mass densities of the two fossil

fuels are considered it is clear that coal is the more energy-

dense resource. On a per-unit-volume basis in an

uncompressed state, natural gas generates 38.7 megajoules of

energy per cubic meter [3]. However, the mass density of

liquefied natural gas (LNG)the form in which natural gas is

commonly transportedis approximately 410 kilograms per

cubic meter [4]. Therefore, LNG has an energy density on a

FIGURE 11: SOLAR INTENSITY LEVELS IN THE UNITED STATES


15/22

per-unit-volume basis of approximately 22 gigajoules. Still,

with coals mass density typically being about 850 kilograms

per cubic meter [5], its energy density on a per-unit-volume

basis would be roughly 24 gigajoules, making natural gas the

slightly lesser energy-dense resource even in its most dense

state, a state which is not found naturally and is nearly 600

times denser than its atmospheric state [4].

Regardless of which resources outperform natural gas

in energy content, the resource is still a viable energy option,and can in fact generate power at noteworthy efficiencies.

Thermal efficiency tends to be founded mostly upon what type

of cycle is used to transform generated heat into usable

electrical power. There are multiple cycles utilized in natural

gas power plants, some of which are very common, and some

that have only started to gain traction. Table 1 lists the four

most common cycles used in natural gas power plants and

their respective heat rates as of 2011 measured in Btu per net

kWh generated, as well as their correlating thermal

efficiencies.

TABLE 5: NATURAL GAS POWER PLANT CYCLES, HEAT RATES,

AND THERMAL EFFICIENCIES [6]

Cycle

Heat Rate

(Btu/net kWh

generated)

Thermal Efficiency

(3,412 Btu/Heat

Rate)

Steam Generator 10,414 32.8%

Gas Turbine 11,569 29.5%

Internal Combustion 9,923 34.4%

Combined Cycle 7,603 44.9%

While steam generator cycles are very common for

many energy sources due to the many years that theyve been

around and are used extensively by coal and nuclear power

plants [7], natural gas power plants as of late have been moreconsistently leaning towards combined cycle power plants.

Due to the widening implementation of combine cycle power

plants, in 2011 all natural gas power plants in the United

States had an average heat rate of 8,152 Btu, which is a

thermal efficiency of 41.9 percent [8]. Furthermore, with

regards to how well the best combined cycle power plants

perform, NaturalGas.org cites that power plants employing

combined cycles can occasionally have thermal efficiencies of

up to 50-60 percent [7].

Theres yet another form of power generation that is

picking up steam due to natural gas: distributed generation.

This deals with placing small gas-powered electricitygenerators on residential, commercial, and industrial sites.

With many locations receiving their own gas line, this option

may be ideal for certain locations. One form of distributed

generation is called a microturbine, which is a very small-

scale gas turbine best suited for residential sites [7].

NaturalGas.org claims that microturbines can reach an

efficiency of up to 80 percent. Yet while distributed

generation may be good for some, an attempt to implement it

on as large of a scale as all of Cache Valley would not be

prudent.


While there are a number of regulations on natura

gas extraction and usage, there are a few that would need a

great amount of consideration with regards to Cache Valley

specifically. One of which deals with permits. Those

companies who producethat is extract and refinenatura

gas are required to seek and acquire approval as well as

necessary permits prior to any drilling. These approvals are

especially tedious when seeking permission to drill ongovernment-owned property. Nevertheless, the prices they

charge are no longer government-regulated, but rather are

dictated by the competition on the market [9].

In contrast, companies that own and operate interstate

pipelines have government regulations imposed upon the rates

they charge, as well as on where they can construct new

pipelines and what type of access to a pipeline they can

provide. Likewise, local distributors have state utility

commission regulations to live by, which supervise rates

construction issues, and make sure proper practice is followed

to maintain enough supply to customers. The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) has dictated that interstatepipelines are to be used as transporters of natural gas only in

the current regulation for transportation pipelines. Historically

interstate pipelines were utilized as both transporters of the gas

along with selling the service, both of which were sold for one

price as a packaged deal [9].

While these previously cited regulations would affec

any natural gas plant in Cache Valley, dealing with them and

working through them would be very manageable

Conversely, the regulations likely to be the greatest obstacle

for implementing a large natural gas plant in Cache Valley

would be the same as for a coal-powered plant: emissions

regulations. Cache Valley is notorious for its inversions and

bad air quality, and any emissions would greatly affect such

The burning of natural gas releases volatile organic

compounds (VOC) into the atmosphere, which greatly

contribute to ground-level ozone, or smog [10]. These

chemicals are linked to many different health concerns, and

therefore come across as negative to the public health and

safety. The exact levels emitted are discussed with

environmental impacts

Another negative about natural gas as viewed from

the public eye deals with the recent mishaps due to hydraulic

fracturing. Fracking, as it is commonly known, is the processof extracting gases from shale by use of great amounts of

water. Fracking has recently picked up due to technologies

that have made it possible to drill horizontally, allowing for

access to more shale. Unfortunately, fracking has also recently

gained a bad wrap because of incidences that have occurred

primarily in the Eastern United States, but have popped up in

many areas of the country. The greatest concern is that many

pollutants may be leaching into public water systems due to

fracking, and DangersofFracking.com claims that wells near

fracking sights contain 17 times the amount of methane as

does any normal well [11]. These incidences are likely to

decrease in frequency, however, with new technologies being


16/22

developed as well as due to companies learning from past

mistakes [12]. Regardless, many environmentalist and

political groups seem to be on an attack front to halt fracking,

citing multiple types of fraccidents [13].

Cost & Economical Feasibility

As depicted in Figure 1, natural gas has been used

extensively in the United States as an energy source since at

least the 1940s. Furthermore, the process of fracking has beenaround since 1947when the first experimental use was

performedand has been used commercially since 1949 [14].

However, the use of natural gas for electric power generation

has become very popular especially in the last few decades

due to advances in horizontal drilling. The first use of

horizontal drilling started to occur in the 1980s in Texas, and

by the early 1990s it had been combined with fracking [14].

Because the shale that natural gas is extracted from lies

horizontally within the Earths crust, the merging of horizontal

drilling with the idea of hydraulic fracturing made the

harvesting of natural gas a much more effective process. This

in turn made the concept of electric power generation by gas-

fired power plants a much more cost effective option, andmany new natural gas power plants have since come to

fruition [14].

While the majority of coal-fired power plants have

been around for 40, 50, and even 60 years, the relatively

recent ascension of natural gas as a primary option for power

generation also means that the majority of gas-fired power

plants are relatively young [15]. This consequently means that

many of the coal-fired plants have much less efficient

processes than do the natural gas plants simply because of

technology advancements between the time periods that the

two types of plants were implemented. In fact, as discussed

under efficiency, most coal-fired plants are steam processes

where as most gas-fired plants are combined cycles.

Keeping this in mind, Table 2 depicts the levelized

costs of different types of power generation plants. The major

criteria taken into account are the capital costsovernight

costs due to building a plantas well as fixed and varying

operational and maintenance costs over a plant lifetime. It also

takes into account any required fees due to emissions. The first

thing to point out is that the gas-fired conventional and

advanced plantsboth combined cycleshave a levelized

cost of $67.1 and $65.6 per kWh, respectively. These values

are much cheaper than the common coal-fired plants in use,and even more cheaper than the coal plants implementing the

CCS process in order to reduce emissions. Despite coal being

a much cheaper fuel than natural gas, the cost of building a

plant is much higher. While its necessary to point out that

there are now a number of coal-fired combine cycle power

plants, the EIA has yet to gain enough information to publish

any levelized costs on these plants. On top of the coal-natural

gas comparison, natural gas also has a levelized cost that is

significantly lower than all of nuclear, geothermal, and

photovoltaic power generating plants.


NaturalGas.org cites natural gas as the cleanes

burning fossil fuel [18]. While true from an emissions

standpoint, its necessary to understand that natural gas still

emits a fair amount of pollutants. Table 3 lists the most

common pollutants that are emitted by the burning of fossi

fuels and how much of each occurs in pounds per energy input

when natural gas is burned.

TABLE 7: NATURAL GAS EMISSIONS [18]

Pollutant Pounds per Billion Btu

of Energy Input

Carbon Dioxide 117,000

Carbon Monoxide 40

Nitrogen Oxides 92

Sulfur Dioxide 1

Particulates 7

Mercury 0.000

While emissions were already cited as a societa

concern, emission regulations have everything to do with their

environmental impact. Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse

gas that fuels the discussion of global warming. Because of the

property of essentially capturing heat within the atmosphere

the rise of levels of greenhouse gases could mean a rise in

temperature and changes to climates, possibly leading to

hazardous consequences. While natural gas only emits abou

half the carbon dioxide that coal emits [18], other non-fossi

fuel sources emit very little or none at all. However, on track

with coal, there is great interest in implementing the CCS

process into natural gas plants to lower emission levels [17]

While this would be environmentally beneficial, it would also

greatly increase the levelized cost of a power plant as shown

in Table 2. Regardless, efforts would be necessary to keepemission levels within regulatory levels. Along with common

emissions, the primary component of natural gas is methane

which is able to trap 21% more heat than can carbon

dioxidethe leading pollutant emitted [18]. While methane is

not necessarily emitted due to burning, leakages can cause

methane to enter the atmosphere. Therefore, great care would

also need to be taken to prevent any such leakages.

The next greatest concerns with natural gas usage are

the environmental impacts of fracking. Yet as already

discussed, while the impacts of fracking are legitimate issues

these impacts are already being minimized and eliminated due

to technological advancement as well as learning from pasmistakes.

Sustainability

Despite being non-renewable, natural gas would

likely be a very sustainable energy source for Cache Valley

over the proposed time interval. In order for a gas-powered

plant to provide the 360 GWh per monthor 216,000 GWh

over 50 yearsnecessary to power Cache Valley, and

considering a thermal efficiency of 45% and an energy density


17/22

of 38.7 megajoules per cubic meter, a supply of (216,000

GWh) * (3,600,000 MJ/GWh) / (38.7 MJ/m3) / (45%) *

(35.315 ft3/m3) = 1.58 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas

would be needed. The EIA estimates that there are 2,543 Tcf

of technically recoverable natural gas in the United States.

This, though, includes undiscovered, unproven, and

unconventional natural gas [19]. To then get an idea of howmuch is recoverable within a suitable distance of Cache

Valley, Tables 4 and 5 give the natural gas reserve summaries

through years 2006 and 2011 for Utah and Wyoming,

respectively. Assuming the dry natural gas is the only

available fuel to be conservative, this proposed plant would

use 20% of the recoverable natural gas in Utah. By including

any dry natural gas in Wyoming, that value would go down to

less than 4%. Therefore, while sustainability would be an issue

for a plant running for hundreds of years, the proposed plant

would absolutely have enough supply of natural gas to be

sustainable over the proposed 50-year period.


The above discussion verifying the sustainability of

the proposed plant also verifies the geographical feasibility

with regards to where the natural gas would come from

Figure 2 depicts the locations near Cache Valley of shale and

tight gas fields where recoverable natural gas is found, current

pipeline systems, as well as where current natural gas power

plants are located. While there are very small fields located

near Brigham City, they very likely would not have anywhere

near the amount of natural gas necessary. However, it would

be very feasible to transport the fuel to the location of the

plant from drilling locations in central east Utah and southwes

Wyoming as Questar already owns an interstate pipeline

connecting both areas to Cache Valley. Transportation of

natural gas is accomplished by cooling the gas to around -260

F until it is in its liquid form: LNG. With advancements in

Energy Source

-Plant Type

Capacity Factor

(%)

Levelized

Capital Cost

Fixed O&M

(Operation &

Maintenance)

Variable O&M

(including fuel)

Transmission

Investment

Total System

Levelized Cost

Coal

-Conventional Steam 85 65.7 4.1 29.2 1.2 100.1

-Advanced Steam 85 84.4 6.8 30.7 1.2 123.0

-Advanced Steam w/CCS 85 88.4 8.8 37.2 1.2 135.5

Natural Gas

-Conventional Combined 87 15.8 1.7 48.4 1.2 67.1

-Advanced Combined 87 17.4 2.0 45.0 1.2 65.6

-Advanced Combined w/CCS 87 34.0 4.1 54.1 1.2 93.4-Conventional Combustion 30 44.2 2.7 80.0 3.4 130.3

-Advanced Combustion 30 30.4 2.6 68.2 3.4 104.6

Nuclear 90 83.4 11.6 12.3 1.1 108.4

Geothermal 92 76.2 12.0 0.0 1.4 89.6

Solar Photovoltaic 25 130.4 9.9 0.0 4.0 144.3

FIGURE 12: ENERGY SOURCE USAGE THROUGHOUT UNITED STATES HISTORY

TABLE 6: NATIONALLY ESTIMATED LEVELIZED COSTS OF NEW POWER PLANTS ENTERING SERVICE IN 2018 IN $ PER MW HOUR [17]


18/22

technology, costs associated with liquefying and regasifying

natural gas are being reduced [22].

The other large issue with the geographical location

is whether or not there is a viable water source within 50 milesof Cache Valley on which the plant can be placed. First off, as

a worst-case scenario a natural gas power plant would need to

withdraw 60,000 gallons per MWh and it would consume

about 1,200 gallons of that [24]. So any water source would

need a flow rate of over (60,000 gal/MWh) / (264.17 gal/m 3) *

(500 MWh) / (3600 sec/hr) = 32 m3/s of water to sustain the

plant, and be able to tolerate actually losing (1,200 gal/MWh)

/ (264.17 gal/m3) * (500 MWh) / (3600 sec/hr) = 0.63 m 3/s of

water. The natural water sources within 50 miles of Cache

Valley are: Great Salt Lake, Logan River, Bear River, and

Bear Lake. While the Great Salt Lake is definitely a large

enough body of water, the damages caused by the high level

of salt in the water would be too difficult to counteract. Theflow rate of the Logan River is about 85 ft3/s [25], or 2.4 m3/s,

so it would be too small to sustain a plant. The flow rate of the

portion of the Bear River in Cache Valley is about 31-43 m3/s

[26], which may possibly be sufficient to sustain a plant, but

would very likely fail at times, and could possibly cause

environmental issues. The total mean flow rate into Bear Lake,

however, is 90 m3/s [27]. The Bear Lake could therefore very

feasibly sustain the proposed power plant.


While not relevant to a large plant in Cache Valley,natural gas also has the benefit of feasibly being able to switch

a coal-powered plant to a gas-powered plant because of the

similarities between the two infrastructures. The

Intermountain Power Plant as cited before is one example.

USU has its own example in a very small coal-fired heating

plant that has recently been converted to natural gas [28].

There is currently a small natural gas power plan

already located in the heart of Cache Valley at approximately

300 South 300 West in Logan City. This local facility

generates approximately 12 megawatts of electric power. This

plantalong with a couple small hydro generation plants thatgenerate about 6 megawatts, supply Logan City with

approximately 10% of the citys annual electric need. It would

be an option to expand this plant to a much larger scale in

order to generate enough power to meet Cache Valleys need

of 360 GWh per month, or about 500 megawatts of power

However, it would require clearing some real estate around the

area to make enough land available, and in the end the Little

Logan River that it draws water from would likely lose too

much water in the process [29].

Regardless of how improbable an expansion of the

existing plant is, the fact that Cache Valley has the plant gives

credence to the feasibility of building a natural gas plant herein the valley. Having the plant here gives an example and

foundation to build from. It gives city officials and residents

alike a model to look to and an idea of what needs to be

considered with regards to Cache Valley specifically when

hoping to build a large natural gas plant here.

Even without the existing plant, the infrastructure for

a natural gas plant is one that is very proven and wel

developed. There are very few questions as to how to make

such a plant effective. They have a lot of heritage themselves

and the fact that theyve branched from the technologies used

to develop coal-fired plants gives them even more credibility

as coal has been in use for even longer.

(Units in billion cubic feet, unless otherwise noted) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Dry Natural Gas 5,146 6,391 6,643 7,257 6,981 7,857

Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation 5,211 6,463 6,714 7,411 7,146 8,108

Natural Gas Non-associated, Wet After Lease Separation 4,894 6,095 6,393 6,810 6,515 7,199

Natural Gas Associated-Dissolved, Wet After Least Separation 317 368 321 601 631 909

Natural Gas Liquids (Million Barrels) -- 108 116 -- -- --

TABLE 8: UTAHS NATURAL GAS RESERVES SUMMARY BY YEAR [20]

(Units in billion cubic feet, unless otherwise noted) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Dry Natural Gas 23,549 29,710 31,143 35,283 35,074 35,290

Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation 24,463 30,896 32,399 36,748 36,526 36,930

Natural Gas Non-associated, Wet After Lease Separation 24,116 30,531 32,176 36,386 36,192 36,612

Natural Gas Associated-Dissolved, Wet After Least Separation 347 365 223 362 334 318

Natural Gas Liquids (Million Barrels) -- 1,032 1,121 -- -- --

TABLE 9: WYOMINGS NATURAL GAS RESERVES SUMMARY BY YEAR [21]


19/22

FIGURE 13: MAP OF PRESENCE OF NATURAL GAS IN UTAH [23]

CONCLUSION

With the information presented, we concluded as a

group that natural gas was the best energy source for the future

of Cache Valley. We decided that its non-renewability wasnt

an important factor due to the time frame of the plant. We

furthermore concluded that, despite not being the most energy

dense source, the energy density of natural gas is suitable for

the objective, and the social, political, and environmentaldrawbacks are manageable, especially compared to other

sources. What was concluded as the factor that most greatly

made natural gas the best viable candidate going forward was

the relatively cheap cost of such a plant from building to

operation and maintenance and fuel source. With a very

sufficient supply of natural gas here in Utah and nearby in

Wyoming, and with an interstate pipeline system already in

place for Cache Valley, we concluded that sustainability

wouldnt be an issue over the 50-year period. We further

decided that the most suitable location for such a plant would

be near Bear Lake to take advantage of the large supply o

water that would be necessary for 500 MW of power

generation. With regards to the geographical feasibility here in

Cache Valley, we concluded that since such a great supply of

natural gas is nearby and that since Bear Lake could indeedhandle the necessary water flow rate of this plant, that this

plant is very feasible. With the example of the current smal

natural gas plant here in Logan to go off of, we would have a

good foundation to build from. Weve therefore concluded

that natural gas is the best single energy source for Cache

Valley.


20/22

WORKS CITED

[1]http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/is-nuclear-power-renewable/?_r=0

[2] https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/community/nuclear_energy/277/benefits_of_nuclear_energy/

[3]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

[4]http://depletedcranium.com/hope-this-works/

[5]http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/issues/health-environment/moens_nuclear_power_environment.html

[6]http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/#.UnLgRBCDl8E;October 31, 2013

[1] Newell, Richard, 2010, EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, 16 Nov 12, from http://www.eia.go

v/neic/speeches/newell_12162010.pdf

[2] Sun Guodong, 2003, The Roles of Government in the Innovation and Use of Clean-Coal Technologies in the United States andChina, 16 Nov 12, fromhttp://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Final_Workshop_Report_China_CCT_0309_frm_KSG_090529_clean.pdf[3] Coal: a clean energy source for the future? updated: January 2011, 16 Nov 12, from http://www.euractiv.com/energy/coal -clean-energy-source-future-linksdossier-188387[4] Future of Coal as an Energy Source, 16 Nov 2012, from http://www.greenlivingans wers .com/archives/121

erica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm[5] Newell, Richard, 2010, EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2012 with projections to 2035, 16 Nov 2012, from

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2012).pdf[6] Distribution of Utah Coal by Principal State, 25 Oct 2013, fromhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/energydata/statistics/coal2.0/pdf/T2.13.pdf[7] New EPA Rules Force Shut Down of 32 Coal-Fire Plants 7 Nov 2014, fromhttp://www.governing.com/news/local/AP-EPA-Rules-Force-Shut-Down-of-32-Coal-Fire-Plants.html

[1] Geothermal Energy. 23 Oct. 2013, from http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/geothermal.html.[2] 2011, Social Impacts. 23 Oct. 2013, from http://www.gsap.is/resources/geothermal/socimpacts/.[3] Geothermal Energy. 24 Oct. 2013, fromhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/geothermal.asp.[4] Duffield, W. and Sass, J., 2004, Geothermal Energy--Clean Power From the Earths Heat, c1249, U.S. Department of theInterior, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdf.[5] Kagel, A. Bates, D. and Gawell, K., 2007 A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the Environment, Geothermal Energy Association,fromhttp://www.geo-energy.org/reports/Environmental%20Guide.pdf.

[6] Duffield, W. and Sass, J., 2004, Geothermal Energy--Clean Power From the Earths Heat, c1249, U.S. Department of theInterior, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdf.[7] Directory: Cents Per Kilowatt-Hour. 23 Oct. 2013, fromhttp://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour.[8] Geothermal Energy. 23 Oct. 2013, from http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/geothermal.html.[9] Blackett, R. Sowards, G. and Trimmer, E., 2004, Utahs High Temperature Geothermal Resource Potential -- Analysis ofSelected Sites, Utah Department of Natural Resources, fromhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdf.[10] Blackett, R. Sowards, G. and Trimmer, E., 2004, Utahs High Temperature Geothermal Resource Potential -- Analysis ofSelected Sites, Utah Department of Natural Resources, fromhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdf.

Figures

[1] Duffield, W. and Sass, J., 2004, Geothermal Energy Clean Power From the Earths Heat, c1249, U.S. Department of the

Interior, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdf.

[2] Blackett, R. Sowards, G. and Trimmer, E., 2004, Utahs High Temperature Geothermal Resource Potential -- Analysis of

Selected Sites, Utah Department of Natural Resources, from http://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdf.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/is-nuclear-power-renewable/?_r=0http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/is-nuclear-power-renewable/?_r=0http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/is-nuclear-power-renewable/?_r=0http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-lasthttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-lasthttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-lasthttp://depletedcranium.com/hope-this-works/http://depletedcranium.com/hope-this-works/http://depletedcranium.com/hope-this-works/http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/issues/health-environment/moens_nuclear_power_environment.htmlhttp://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/issues/health-environment/moens_nuclear_power_environment.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/#.UnLgRBCDl8Ehttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/#.UnLgRBCDl8Ehttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/#.UnLgRBCDl8Ehttp://belfercenter/http://www.governing.com/news/local/AP-EPA-Rules-Force-Shut-Down-of-32-Coal-Fire-Plants.htmlhttp://www.governing.com/news/local/AP-EPA-Rules-Force-Shut-Down-of-32-Coal-Fire-Plants.htmlhttp://www.governing.com/news/local/AP-EPA-Rules-Force-Shut-Down-of-32-Coal-Fire-Plants.htmlhttp://www.governing.com/news/local/AP-EPA-Rules-Force-Shut-Down-of-32-Coal-Fire-Plants.htmlhttp://www.altenergy.org/renewables/geothermal.htmlhttp://www.altenergy.org/renewables/geothermal.htmlhttp://www.gsap.is/resources/geothermal/socimpacts/http://www.gsap.is/resources/geothermal/socimpacts/http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/geothermal.asphttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/geothermal.asphttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/geothermal.asphttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdfhttp://www.geo-energy.org/reports/Environmental%20Guide.pdfhttp://www.geo-energy.org/reports/Environmental%20Guide.pdfhttp://www.geo-energy.org/reports/Environmental%20Guide.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdfhttp://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hourhttp://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hourhttp://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hourhttp://www.altenergy.org/renewables/geothermal.htmlhttp://www.altenergy.org/renewables/geothermal.htmlhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdfhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdfhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah_high_temp6.pdfhttp://www.altenergy.org/renewables/geothermal.htmlhttp://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hourhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdfhttp://www.geo-energy.org/reports/Environmental%20Guide.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/geothermal.asphttp://www.gsap.is/resources/geothermal/socimpacts/http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/geothermal.htmlhttp://www.governing.com/news/local/AP-EPA-Rules-Force-Shut-Down-of-32-Coal-Fire-Plants.htmlhttp://www.governing.com/news/local/AP-EPA-Rules-Force-Shut-Down-of-32-Coal-Fire-Plants.htmlhttp://belfercenter/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/#.UnLgRBCDl8Ehttp://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/issues/health-environment/moens_nuclear_power_environment.htmlhttp://depletedcranium.com/hope-this-works/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-lasthttp://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/is-nuclear-power-renewable/?_r=0


21/22

[3] Blackett, R. Sowards, G. and Trimmer, E., 2004, Utahs High Temperature Geothermal Resource Potential -- Analysis ofSelected Sites, Utah Department of Natural Resources, fromhttp://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/ugwg/pdf/ugwg_paper0405.pdf.

[1] US Department of Energy, 2013, Natural Gas Fueling the Blue Flame. from

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/education/energylessons/gas/index.html

[2] US Department of Energy, 2013, How Fossil Fuels were Formed. from

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/education/energylessons/coal/gen_howformed.html

[3] Envestra, 2007, About Natural Gas | Reference Guides. from http://www.natural -gas.com.au/about/references.html

[4] The Engineering Toolbox, 2013, Liquefied Natural Gas LNG. from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/liquefied-natural-gas-

lng-d_1092.html

[5] The Engineering Toolbox, 2013, Classification of Coal. from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/classification-coal-

d_164.html

[6] U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012, Table 8.2. Average Tested Heat Rates by Prime Mover and Energy Source, 2007

- 2011. from http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html

[7] Natural Gas Supply Association, 2011, Electric Generation Using Natural Gas. from

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/uses_eletrical.asp

[8] U.S Energy Information Administration, 2012, Table 8.1. Average Operating Heat Rate for Selected Energy Sources. from

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html

[9] Natural Gas Supply Association, 2011, The Market Under Regulation. from http://www.naturalgas.org/regulation/regulation .asp

[10] United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution Standards. from

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/basic.html[11] Dong, Linda, What Goes In and Out of Hydraulic Fracturing. from http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

[12] Bullis, Kevin, 2013, One Way to Solve Frackings Dirty Problem. from http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519416/one -

way-to-solve-frackings-dirty-problem/

[13] Earth Justice, 2013, Fracking Across the United States. from http://earthjustice.org/features/ca mpaigns/fracking-across-the-

united-states

[14] Montgomery, Carl T and Smith, Michael B., 2012, "Hydraulic Fracturing: History of an Enduring Technology." from

http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf

[15] Spross, Jeff, 2013, The Largest Coal-Fired Power Plant in New England is Shutting Down. from

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/08/2751681/largest-coal-plant-new-england-retiring/

[16] U. S. Energy Information Administration, 2013, Energy sources have changed throughout the history of the United States. from

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11951&src=Total-b2

[17] U. S. Energy Information Administration, 2013, Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook

2013. from http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm[18] Natural Gas Supply Association, 2011, Natural Gas and the Environment. from

http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp

[19] Natural Gas Supply Association, 2011, Resources. from http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp

[20] U. S. Energy Information Administration, 2013, Natural Gas Reserve Summary as of Dec. 31. from

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_enr_sum_dcu_SUT_a.htm

[21] U. S. Energy Information Administration, 2013, Natural Gas Reserve Summary as of Dec. 31. from

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_enr_sum_d

Energy Situation in Cache Valley

Documents

Transcript of Energy Situation in Cache Valley