Comparison of Energy Technologies and Feasibility for Future Sustainability
Stephen Odell
RPI
Title/Cover Page
Abstract
Compare producing 1 kW energy in a coal plant vs AP100 or a more established
reactor…possibly compare risk of accidents from a nuclear plant or a coal plant….OR just
compare Nuclear Energy vs one other energy
Introduction/Background
General background on each energy technology, need for energy in future, etc.
Problem Description
Compare different aspects of nuclear energy to other forms of energy (coal, IGCC, solar, wind,
geothermal, biomass, fuel cell, etc):
 Cost (per kWh, construction, operation/maintenance)
 Size (equivalent land space)
 Capacity (amount of energy produced, availability factor)
 Available fuel (uranium, coal, fossil fuels remaining on earth, and how long could
sustain)
 Safety
 Emissions (pollution, global warming)
 Waste
 Etc.
Determine best form of energy based on above and future energy needs, feasibilities. In depth
descriptions of each technology analyzed.
Methodology/Approach
Literature review, data gathering for each energy technology, studies/surveys (i.e. public
opinion). Comparison of all data once gathered through use of graphs, charts, numerical
analysis etc. Need to understand current energy landscape and needs of future.
Resources Required
Access to journals, literature, data, etc.
NEI
EPRI
INPO
Other industry organizations
Plant personnel
Employees or prior employees of each energy technology
Expected Outcome
Nuclear energy will show to be favorable in many aspects.
Milestone/Deadline List
References
1. High-power-density annular fuel for pressurized water reactors: Manufacturing costs
and economic benefits
Lahoda, Edward (Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, Science and Technology
Department, Pittsburgh, PA 15235-5083, United States); Mazzoccoli, Jason; Beccherle,
Julien Source: Nuclear Technology, v 160, n 1, p 112-134, October 2007
2. The competitiveness of nuclear power generation in comparison
Taylor, Martin1; Keppler, Jan-Horst1 Source: International Congress on Advances in
Nuclear Power Plants 2010, ICAPP 2010, v 3, p 2116-2125, 2010, International
Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants 2010, ICAPP 2010
3. Fuel of novel generation for PWR and as alternative to MOX fuel
Savchenko, A. (A.A. Bochvar All-Russia Research Institute of Inorganic Materials
(VNIINM) 123060, Rogova St., 5A, Moscow, Russia); Vatulin, A.; Konovalov, I.; Morozov,
A.; Sorokin, V.; Maranchak, S. Source: Energy Conversion and Management, v 51, n 9, p
1826-1833, September 2010
4. Energy- and exergy-based comparison of coal-fired and nuclear steam power
plants Marc A. Rosen Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ryerson Polytechnic
University, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
5. A benchmark for life cycle air emissions and life cycle impact assessment of
hydrokinetic energy extraction using life cycle assessment
Miller, Veronica B. (Energy Systems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering
and Materials Science, Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation, Swanson School of
Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States); Landis, Amy E.;
Schaefer, Laura A. Source: Renewable Energy, v 36, n 3, p 1040-1046, March 2011
6. Subsidies for electricity-generating technologies: A review
Badcock, Jeremy (ISA, School of Physics, A28, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006,
Australia); Lenzen, Manfred Source: Energy Policy, 2010
7. Small-medium sized nuclear coal and gas power plant: A probabilistic analysis of their
financial performances and influence of CO2 cost
Locatelli, Giorgio (Politecnico di Milano, Department Management, Economics and
Industrial Engineering, Via Lambruschini 4/b., 20156 Milano, Italy); Mancini, Mauro
Source: Energy Policy, v 38, n 10, p 6360-6374, 2010
8. Comparison of electricity generation costs
9.