Lecture: Systems Analysis Methodologies
Dr. John C. Wright
MIT - PSFC
28 SEP 2010
Introduction
Outline
O UTLINE
Scoping study
Systems analysis - increasing
detail
Life cycle analysis
Simulation models
Risk analysis and uncertainty
How are all these connected?
2
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Introduction
Outline
I NTRODUCTION
Many issues for sustainability
requiring balance
We need to quantify to
proceed
Deal with complexity and
uncertainty
Economics Environment
This is the goal “Systems
Analysis”
Society
End result often involves very,
very large computer codes
How do we make such
computer models?
3
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Scoping study
S COPING STUDY CHARACTERISTICS
We’ll see more of this in a fuel costs example next week.
Basic guidelines for a scoping study:
Highly simplified
Mostly linear analysis - add separate costs
Very few feedback effects
Advantages
Relatively simple to understand
Good overall picture
Identification of weaknesses
4
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
S YSTEMS A NALYSIS IS THE NEXT STEP IN EVALUATION
Assume a favorable scoping study
Next step is a detailed systems analysis
All elements are analyzed in much greater detail
For example in our nuclear plant scoping study we gave the fuel
price in $/kg
In a system analysis model these costs are further broken down
Fuel costs:
Mining costs
Conversion costs
Enrichment costs
Finance costs
5
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
M ODULARIZATION OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Each of these may be further analyzed one or two levels deeper.
Input data will be based on experience and future projections.
The analysis will account for uncertainties.
All lower level contributions are combined to form one module of
the systems code
⇒ the fuel cost module.
6
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
SA INCLUDES NON - LINEAR EFFECTS
A critical feature in SA is the inclusion of interdependencies.
Systems analysis are not linear.
They include feedback effects.
For example consider mining costs:
Plenty of Reserves – no problem, linear relation works.
Reserves dwindle – other issues arise
Fuel costs will rise
Will new fuel be found, if so how much?
How will this affect the projected cost of fuel?
7
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
B EWARE OF COMPLEX CODES .
Systems analysis code contains a large number of complex
modules
Often hard to understand the whole picture, often expert in part of
the picture.
Should be more reliable than a scoping study thought.
Warning:
Be very careful using complex systems
analysis codes!!
8
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
SA IS NOT ONLY ABOUT MONEY
Investors are not the only people to carry out systems analysis
Investors focus on financial returns
Architectural engineers focus on technical credibility, schedule,
and cost
Environmentalists focus on pollution, waste disposal, greenhouse
gasses, etc.
Government focuses on the public good
9
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
G OVERNMENT IMPACT ON SA IS THROUGH REGULATION
Desirability of a regulation is in the eye of the stakeholder.
Everyone is a lobbyist.
Financial institutions.
Engineering firms.
Environmental groups.
Industrial groups.
Consideration of impact of regulation is part of any SA.
There often is an uncertain political aspect to a regulation.
10
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
S TRUCTURE OF A S YSTEMS A NALYSIS
Number of approaches to systems analysis
Method below is fairly typical
Goal of the analysis – answer the question
Does it make sense to build a new power
plant (of type X)?
The end product – a large, complex, hopefully all inclusive,
simulation code.
11
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
T HE S IMULATION C ODE
Technical aspects from a life cycle analysis
Regulation aspects from a risk analysis
Include feedback effects
Combine to create a financial analysis
12
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Life Cycle Analysis
Systems Analysis
Life Cycle Analysis
L IFE C YCLE A NALYSIS (LCA) ELEMENTS
Emissions
Energy
Production of
Raw Materials
Wastes
Manufacturing
Process
Use of
Product
Wastes
Wastes
Disposal
Recycle
Wastes
Comprehensive cradle-to-grave, wells-to-wheels, dust-to-dust
Attributes:
analysisCosts, Resource use, Emissions, Wastes, Costs, Performance, etc.
Includes
Sum cumulative
attributes over total life cycle of product to compare net impacts
Raw materials
Materials processing
Manufacturing
Distribution
Repair and maintenance
Waste disposal
Decommissioning
13
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
MacDonald’s
Styrofoam or paper?
Oil (bad?)
Trees (natural?)
Chemicals (worse)
Paper (good ?)
Styrofoam (??)
Oil
Chlorine or
Peroxide
Pulp
Paper
PCBs +
Dioxins
Benzene + C2H4 + etc.
Acid or Alkali
Water
Wastewater
Hard to recycle
Plastic coating
Landfill
Trash
CFCs
CO2
Pentane
Styrene
Polystyrene foam
McD
Recycle
Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.
Hydrogen Production Example
• Make from steam methane
reforming?
• Make from water electrolysis
using wind power?
Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.
Steam Methane Reforming
System Boundary Definition
Upstream
processes
Plant Construction
& Decommissioning
Resources
in
Hydrogen
Natural gas
production & distribution
Fossil fuel
energy in
SMR plant
operation
Electricity
generation
System Boundary
Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.
Emissions
air, water,
wastes
SMR Results
H2 is a clean fuel, but its production from natural gas
has environmental consequences
H2 plant itself produces few emissions, except CO2
CO2 is the largest air emission (98 wt%) and accounts
for 77% of the GWP
0.64 MJ of H2 produced for every 1 MJ of fossil
energy consumed
Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.
Wind/Electrolysis Study
turbines
electrolyzer
H2 storage
Wind turbines:
Atlantic Orient Corporation (50kW x 3)
Class 5 wind data from upper Midwest site
(North Dakota)
Electrolyzer:
Stuart Energy (30 Nm3/hr nominal capacity)
Cars fueled: fleet of 46 at 3 kg/car/week
Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.
GWP and Energy Balance
Wind/Electrolysis
Preliminary results:
• GWP = 650 g CO2-eq/kg H2
– Only 5% of the greenhouse gas emissions from SMR
• Energy balance = 20 MJ of H2 produced for every
1 MJ of fossil energy consumed
– 31 times more than the net energy balance from SMR
• Emissions are from equipment manufacture
– Majority from concrete bases for wind turbines
– Water consumption in electrolysis accounts for nearly
all resources
Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.
Hydrogen Production Choice?
• Wind power offers significant reduction in GHG
emissions
• For transportation, there is a mismatch between
wind turbine energy availability and the large
concentrated populations of cars
• Costs for hydrogen from wind power are MUCH
higher than those from SMR
• For SMR, more fossil energy is consumed than H2
energy produced
Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.
Systems Analysis
Life Cycle Analysis
ACCURACY REFLECTS UNCERTAINTIES
Technical accuracy is good
Based on established engineering principles
Amount of fuel per year
Amount of stainless steel pipe
Average lifetime of valves
Converting technical into $ more difficult
Interest rates
Inflation rates
Cost of fuel
14
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
An Example
A N LCA OF NUCLEAR FUEL COST INCLUDING SCARCITY
Cost of nuclear fuel including scarcity
Reference case: U=$2000/kg
Breakdown from the MIT study for cost per kg
Ore
Enrichment
Fabrication
Storage and Disposal
Total
$437
$117
$825
$351
$2040
15
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
#$%&'(&)&*&+,&'-.%/&*0
† 12 3'2.&4',$05'''''''''''''''''''''678889:;<=
† >5? 3'!'@>& A?&*%B'C+B''''''7B!D!8!8':>?*9E*
† F'3'F.*+'*G5&''''''''''''''''''''''!B!D!8H':>?*9:;
† I2'3'>5?9F'3'2.&49E*''''''''''''7B8D!8J :;<=9E*
† K2 3'I2D12 3'!05 E*').&4''''''''6J7'I9E*
† KLC2.&4 3'2.&4',$059:>?*
8BMH',&+509:>?*
!"
#$%&'($)(*+,(%$'*($-($.,
†
†
†
†
†
†
/"(01($.,(23,45'(/(01(.,652(*$(&',(7
8$'*($-($.,(3'(*+&'(9::;01<$.,
=.,(.,',.>,'(6*(*+3'(?.3%,(@(A3
A3 )$*(B,44(0)$B)
C''&D,(E"(2,6.'($-(.,',.>,'(-$.(!E"()&0,'
F+,)
#! ! #$ " %$ " &%$ " $ " ! #&'% "#$ ! $ " ! &'% "#$" ()*+,-.
† G6%+()&0,(.,5&%,'(.,',.>,'(H2( #$$ " % ()*+,-.
!"
#$%&'(%&)*+,-,./,† 01,23*.,-,./,-*2-*2*45&67%8&*84*7%9,
$! !% " ! $" #$&' #%
† 08-7*84*8.,*$%((*%&6.,2-,*.23%'(:*2-*.,-,./,-*
'$%&'(,
† ;%93(,*98',(
$
 #$&' % ¬¯
¬­¯
"
#
­­­°
+()* !% " ! + " %&' ¡¡,# žž #­­°° ! +" %&' ¡¡,# žž
žŸ $!
ž $" #$&' #% ®­°
­
Ÿ
®
¢
±
¢
±
† <" =*!>?
!"
"#$%&''()($*+,%-../0)1
† 2345/6%$.%*30,/+6%7,+*)1%4+8%09+*:/%
#()9%)(4/
† &1%0$1)%$.%$6/%:$/1%37%*/#%6/1/6;/1%
4+8%5/%.$3*'
† <$)9%/../0)1%9+;/%+*%(47+0)%$*%)9/%
+4$3*)%$.%6/1/6;/1
!!
#$%&'()*%+&,-&'(.%/
† #$+%%&%--%01/&2%1%+)34345&'
„ 6%7890%)%41&,-&,82&4(.%/
„ 6%7890%&,82&0,98&78941/&:31$&;<!&-+%%&4(.%/
„ =>&%8%01+3031?&2%)942&:388&340+%9/%&%90$&
?%9+&@ )%%1&4%:&2%)942&:31$&4(.%/
† <82&4(.%/&+%7890%2&*?&4%:&4(.%/
† <82&0,98&+%7890%)%41/&A&'0,98B#&A&CD!EB?+
† '%:&2%)942&A&F&340+%9/%&G&1,198&78941/&A&E
!"
#$%&'()*%+&,-&'(.%/&01,234
† 5,)*62%&3%+)/
* !+" ! #$%&'%()*+,-.& " /012*3.4215.6.(' " +.7*51415%'8
*!"#$
! *********%&'( ***** " *******
+ ********9***:;:<*%&'(+
,)
! =:: " ==;>+
† 7%+%8&'2(.% 9&:;;8&'1,<= 9&!>;8&#? 9&";&@+/8&3&6/&
)%</(+%A&62&@%<+/
!"
#$%&'$($)*$(
† '$($)*$(&+,&-,%.&o /,(0&,1&,)$&+,$(&23
† 4,(0&,1&,)$&+,$(&23&o ($5)/6&1,)&.$%&,)$
† #$%&)$($)*$(&/,(0&7,)$&065.&8.80859&)$($)*$(
† :20&;,2&9,($&7,)$&<$/52($&,1&8./)$5(8.+&
-$75.-&065.&;,2&+58.&%806&.$%&)$($)*$(
!"
#$%&'$($)*$(&+,-./0
† 1&(2345$&3-6$5

% !"# $& % % $
% !"# && ¬­
!ž
­­
'$ " ! '() # *" ž* " '
'$ $& % ! '$ " " ( #
ž
% !"# ®­
% !"# $& %
Ÿ
† 7$)$&'28 9&!:;<=8> ?@A-)$B&C2 9&DEE&F&?@A-)$B&
G.6&?H&9&!
† #-/$&/I$&J$$6KG,?&5--4
„ C-)$+/0&6$4$.6(&-.&'2+/0
„ '2+/0&6$4$.6(&-.&C-)$+/0&
!"
Systems Analysis
An Example
E QUATIONS FOR THE COST OF ORE ARE NON - LINEAR
Known reserves and cost of ore are inter-related
� �
Core (t) = Ci exp k1
10N(t)MF t
Ri (t) − 10N(t)MF t
�
�
Ncoal
N(t) = Ni0 +
+ k2 Ni0 t
Tp
�
�
Core (t) − Ci
Ri (t) = Ri0 1 + k3
Core (t)
��
k1 = 2.3, k2 = 0.05, k3 = 2
16
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
An Example
C OST OF ORE FROM SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
C[$/kg]
N[#]
R[107 kg]
1,000
800
Note the
singular
response
around 40
years. What
causes this?
600
400
200
What does a
plot of R vs C
look like?
0
0
10
20
Year
30
17
40
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
An Example
C ONCLUSION
Cost of ore increases by 30
Ore is 1/5 the cost of uranium
COE of uranium = 0.56 cent/kWhr
This yields 3.8 cents/kWhr
Not as bad when you calculate the present value
Still – it could be a problem
Uncertainty: what is the sensitivity to k1 , k2 , k3
18
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
Risk Analysis
R ISK A NALYSIS
Risk analysis involves accidents to people or mechanical failures
Too many injuries or failures lower the capacity factor and reduce
revenue
We want to minimize risk but it is not possible to achieve zero risk
Qualitatively risk can be written as
Risk = Frequency × Consequence
19
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
Risk Analysis
T YPES OF R ISK
Risk can be continuous or discrete
Continuous: exposure to toxic fumes
Discrete: steam pipe explosion
Consequences could cause minor injuries
Consequences could cause death
Consequences could involve land or water contamination
Even if no human or ecological damage, mechanical failures
lower capacity factor
20
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
Risk Analysis
AVOIDING R ISK
Three basic approaches:
Ultra robust design to minimize failure
Redundancy – one system fails, another takes over
Increased shut-downs for maintenance and repairs
21
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
Risk Analysis
D ETERMINING R ISK
How do we determine risk?
This is the realm of risk analysis
Single component failures relatively easy
Qualification data available
History of real world experience
Can predict the mean time between failure
Single small failures often harmless
Single gigantic failures very rare
22
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
Risk Analysis
C OMPLEX FAILURES
Largest danger: often a sequence of
minor failures leads to major
catastrophe
For example: TMI, Challenger
Analysis requires sophisticated tools
Fault tree analysis
Event tree analysis
Uncertainty analysis
Probability of a severe accident
Greater for a sequence of minor
failures
Fault Tree example
Smaller for a single major failure
23
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
Systems Analysis
Risk Analysis
W HAT TO DO ?
Recommendations vary by group
Builders tend to underestimate risks to keep the cost down
Example: Don’t worry – the Big Dig is safe
Others tend to overestimate the risks to avoid or delay
construction
Example: Nuclear is unsafe – don’t build it.
Example: Wind kill birds – don’t build it.
Often the arbiter of risks are government agencies – the EPA,
NRC, FDA, etc.
Desire risk informed regulations
Regulations consistent with severity of the risk
24
SE T-4 Systems Analysis
#$%&''()*+,*-./%/0,12'/
† 345%64/)%+-)7%,88/9*%94$)*+(9*-4$%94)*%48%,%
245/+%2',$*:
† #))(1/%-$-*-,'%9,2-*,'%94)*%-$9'(6/)%,''%
+/;(',*-4$)%,))49-,*/6%5-*<%+-)7
† #)%94$)*+(9*-4$%2+49//6)=%$/5%+-)7)%1,>%?/%
-6/$*-8-/6
† @</)/%9,$%'/,6%*4%$/5%+/;(',*-4$)
† A/5%+/;(',*-4$)%'/,6%*4%94$)*+(9*-4$%9<,$;/)
† B<,$;/%4+6/+)%-$9+/,)/%*-1/%,$6%94)*%48%
94$)*+(9*-4$
!"
#$%&'()*+,-.+/()&0(1%2
† 3**-4%&+$%&/)/+/52&.56/+52&.(*+&/*&'.56
† 3**-4%&+$%&/)/+/52&.()*+,-.+/()&+/4%&/*&#.
† 7%8&,%9-25+/()*&(:+%)&(..-,&,5)1(42;
† <(,&*/462/./+;&5**-4%&+$5+&)%8&,%9-25+/()*&
(..-,&5+&+$%&,5+%&r 6%,&;%5,
† =5.$&)%8&,%9-25+/()&/).,%5*%*&.(*+&>;&Ʃ'
† =5.$&)%8&,%9-25+/()&/).,%5*%*&+/4%&>;&Ʃ+
† ?(52@&.52.-25+%&+$%&)%8&.(*+&(:&+$%&625)+&
/).2-1/)9&)%8&,%9-25+/()*
!"
#$%&'%(&)*+,-./0-1*+&2%.1*3
† '%(&0*+,-./0-1*+&-14%&#05&6&*.171+89&-14%&#0
:9/,&%;-.8&.%7/98-1*+&-14%&'Ʃ† '&6&.#05&6&-*-89&+/4<%.&*=&0$8+7%,
† >8-$%48-10899?
"!a ! "! " # %$ ! "! " %"!a%$
† @*9A%&=*.&#05
"!a !
"!
! % %$
† '*-%&-$8-&.Ʃ-&B&C&=*.&0*4:9%-1*+
!"
#$%&'%(&)*+,
† -&+./.012&1234/%5,&$*06+&7*2&,$%&5%(&8*+,
a ! & !"# " ' %& ! & !"# "
& !"#
$%!
%&
! $ %(
† '*,%&,$1,&Ʃ,&156&Ʃ)&12%&2%01,%6
† 91:%&Ʃ,&0123%2&; 7%(%2&(*2:%2+&5%%6%6<&0%16+&
,*&0*(%2&8*+,+
† =4,&,$%>&12%&?1.6&*@%2&1&0*53%2&,./%
† A.B%6&8*+,+&C%D3D&.5+42158%<&E%5%7.,+<&%,8DF&0%16&
,*&1&5%,&.582%1+%&.5&)81? 64%&,*&6%01>+
!"
"#$%&'(#)'Ʃ*
† +,-)%.%,/'0,-&1$%2'34)$54)%'4,$'&46#)
%( ! %( !"#$ " %( %"&'#
† 746#)'-#2/2'0,-)%42%'42'Ʃ/'0,-)%42%2
† +,-)%.%,/4&'&46#)'-#2/2'4)%'4221.%$'/#'2-4&%'
&0,%4)&8'50/3'0,0/04&'&46#)'-#2/2'*&46#)
%( %"&'# ! +!( %"&'#
%*
,)
† 9: 02'4'-#,2/4,/'46#1/'%;14&'/#':
!!
#$%&'())(*&+,-%
† #$%&-%.&/(-0)12/),(-&/(0)&,0&3,4%-&56
%*! ž
%+ ¬­
a ! , !"# "
­­
, !"#
ž%, $"%& " -!, '"()%
ž
*! ®­
! % %+ Ÿ
† #$%&5%0)&0)17)%36
† 8,-,0$&/(-0)12/),(-&70&0((-&70&9(00,5:%&
%4%-&,;&,)&*%7-0&5(11(.,-3&*(1%&*(-%6&
29&;1(-)
!"
#$%&'$()#*+'),+-)''
Total Capital Cost
8
8
6.5
Ccapny
( )
5
3.5
2
2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
y
delta t (years)
0.4
0.5
0.5
!"
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J
Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.