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 the use 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 and controversial 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 ratings representing 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 coal 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 of combined 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 coal 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 coal 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 coal 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 natural gas is the best energy source for Cache Valley.

TABLE 1: ENERGY SOURCE DECISION MATRIX

TABLE 2: WEIGHTED FACTORS FOR DECISION MATRIX

Energy Density & Efficiency The 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]
TABLE 3: ENERGY DENSITIES

NUCLEAR ENERGY Renewability There 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]

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]

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 and oil 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 of constructing a nuclear power plant is about 2 to 2.5 billion dollars for a plant with two conventional reactors and generating about two gigawatts a 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 that their new ESBWR design could reduce costs to below $1000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. However, in practice the costs can be substantially more. The notorious construction of Watts 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 of dollars invested in planning and licensing expenses. The two billion dollar figure for a typical plant is the 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 plant 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 plant 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

FIGURE 1: CNN POLL ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER

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 location produce electricity in quantities that would require 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 is the 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 plant 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 energy resources. Its primary source of energy comes from burning coal. Coal is fossil fuel, or a mineralized form of carbon so its energy is released from burning and cant be renewed. For this reason, one of the main concerns for coal energy is that it is a limited resources. Mined coal is currently the largest

source of electricity generation worldwide and is being produced 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 fossilization time scale of millions of years to produce coal like we use today. Energy Density & Efficiency There are a wide variety of types of coals used for energy production. With the variety of coal minerals, there is a range from approximately 13-30 Mega joules per kilogram for energy efficiency. This is slightly less than natural gas but considered a rich energy source. The related efficiencies are also derived from a range of energy production cycles. With the burning of coal, a simple steam cycle can generate power with a thermodynamic efficiency of 35 percent. This can be increased with higher production temperatures along with other procedures being researched. European companies are researching the design of combined cycles that use coal to generate power with upwards to 49 percent for a net electric efficiency. Societal Views & Political Regulations While there are benefits economically to burning coal for energy generation, environmental concerns have drawn government agencies to create restrictions on coal that make it more difficult to use for inexpensive energy. These environmental impacts discussed more closely in the following section are the underlying source for political regulations on the use of coal. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is the government program at the forefront of these developing restrictions and most recently have created additional rules for the use of coal burning. Over thirty power plants mostly driven by coal burning in more than twelve different states are being driven to closure with the introduction of two new rules that the EPA announced in 2011. These power plants that have been running for decades and who currently provided power for over twenty million households are being pulled down with the new restrictions. While most of these are outside of Utah, the numbers are of significant interest to the coal production and use locally. Both of the rules being pushed by the EPA are regarding emission issues with environmental and health concerns. The first is in protection of states that are downwind 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 new standards are shown.
TABLE 4: DECREASE IN CHEMICAL POLLUTANTS IN COAL BURNING EMISSIONS FROM NEW EPA RULES

While most of the plants that would be shut down and affected most are on average 50 years, the impact of the political regulations will also impact the societal views. There is representative example in the energy production alternative of nuclear. With the tightening restrictions placed on nuclear power generation options, the common people while not understanding very much become very opposed to the perceived risk and concerns of the energy source. With the increasing regulations being applied to burning fossil fuels it can be projected that societal views will be decreased. If it follows historical patterns, coal will become more difficult to efficiently use regardless of how economically advantageous or convenient it is. The largest challenge for coal as a realistic energy source for Cache Valley in the future is the political regulations due to health concerns and the environmental impact. This challenge becomes even more emphasized with the local example of Logan City in Cache Valley. Interesting to coal energy are the local constraints in Cache Valley. While coal burning is common, it would have more severe effects locally do to the inversion around Logan. This is discussed in more detail under the environmental impact section. Due to the inversion and air pollution effects in the valley, city officials are putting tighter restrictions on emissions. If they are already putting restriction on wood burning and vehicle emissions it doesnt seem plausible to suggest coal burning for energy production housed inside of the valley. One further example of the local societal movement in this context is Utah State Universitys actions to replace a coal fired heating plant with natural gas and using public transportation with cleaner fuels. Cost The cost in terms of $/kW hour is reported as 2250 dollars per kilowatt. Federal spending in this field according to the EIA is 290 million for tax expenditures, 574 million for research and development, and 69 million for federal electricity support. The use of coal faces barriers like any other energy source. Although coal would be the cheapest electricity option in the U.S., it cannot meet air-pollution standards as mentioned in addressing political regulations and societal views. Environmental Impact Coal has been demonstrated to have negative impacts on the environment. Currently it is the second largest source in the US for carbon dioxide emissions. The byproducts of burning coal include a variety of chemicals that add to acid rain and climate change. A more specific impact related to Cache Valley is the inversion that traps the emissions into the air and cause unhealthy breathing conditions. According to an article published on euractive.com, environmentalists argue that although clean coal may be viable in 20 years it is still currently the dirtiest of all of the fossil fuels. The IGCC (Integrated gasification combined cycle) uses coal while decreasing emissions. The barrier here is getting companies to buy the power plants because the process has no heritage yet. Clean Coal technologies that are being developed would be critical in the development of a coal

Chemical Pollutant Mercury Nitrogen Oxide Sulfur Dioxide

% Decrease in Emission 90% 50% 70%

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

energy plant in the Valley. Clean coal technologies being developed include several technologies and processes to both decrease emissions and environmental impact as well as improve the efficiency of coal energy. Some of these include the following: Chemically washing minerals and impurities from coal Gasification Treating gasses with steam to remove sulfur dioxide Carbon capture and storage Improving calorific value (efficiency of conversion into electricity)

Sustainability With the goal of generating energy for Cache Valley for a 50 year time period in, coal presents no concerns. The potential of this source to meet future energy demand has several aspects. While geopolitical instability creates complications in oil and gas prices, coal is returning as a cheap option. Already, demands for coal are projected to be increasing in the future. It does have benefits. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported in 2007 that the world reserves contained enough coal for 180 years of supply at current consumption rates. Deposits are evenly distributed around the globe, unlike other sources such as oil. Coal can be stored, used quickly, and meet energy needs when demands increase to a peak. Green living Answers also recognizes the option of coal energy for an alternative solution with rising oil prices. Figure 3 shows the trend of coal use will continue in the future.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CSS) is the latest clean coal technology according to the DOE. The compressed liquid is planned to put in the ground. Potentially into depleted natural gas fields. Still have worries of leaks, water contamination, and induced geological instability. CSS is also currently very expensive. The worlds first clean coal plant was completed in September of 2008 in Spremberg, Germany, owned by a company named Vattenfall. The plant is called Schwarze Pumpe power station. What this plant does is capture the CO2 and other gasses that are negative emitters and compresses them into a liquid. It is not considered a final solution to the emission problem but an achievable step in the current timeline. It is a good example of solutions that can make coal a more desirable option for Cache Valleys energy resource. Clean coal technology is the only practical option to have coal as an energy source for Cache Valley, which becomes the focus of this section. The strong inversions that happen in Cache Valley have already created health concerns with air pollution. With the restrictions being placed locally on emissions and clean air, it becomes more challenging to consider a coal burning plant as a long term energy source even if it was cleaned coal.

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

An important assumption made in considering the sustainability of coal for an energy source is that it is aiming to meet the needs of this project. That means the quantified energy requirement of Cache Valley and inside the noted time frame of 50 years. While coal is sustainable for these requirements with large reserves worldwide, it is a finite resource and will necessarily not be sustainable on the greater scale of energy demands in the future. Geographical Feasibility According to the Bureau of Land Management, 95 percent of Utahs current electricity generation comes from coal. This is no coincidence since Utah produces large reservoirs of coal for mining. In 2005 alone, there was 24.5 million tons of coal produced with a sales value of over $400 million. Looking at the geographical feasibility and impact of actually mining the coal, Emery County serves as a good example. In Emery County, there are ten operating mines covering 90K acres. All of the mines in Utah are underground mines with little surface disturbance. Central Utah reserves have been mined over 100 years and expect to only last another 15 with the current consumption rate. BLM expects with the approaching depletion of these mines that there would be an expansion to other coal fields in Utah. If Cache Valley was one of these places they could potentially have generated royalty revenues of > 25 million annually exporting in addition to producing their own energy. Figure 4 shows a map of Utahs current coal mines.

From this geological survey, it doesnt look like coal could actually be mined out of Cache Valley. The closest location with underlying coal reserves appears to be in Summit County. This would create the coal production to be approximately 100 miles from Cache Valley. It would need to be imported. We would want to look at a coal burning plant for the coal imported to actually be produced in the Valley. The only option would be to import the coal from other coal fields, most likely in Utah for this case. This means that the geographic characteristics of Cache Valley would not support the mining of coal. Available Infrastructure Currently, the available infrastructure is not a benefit in Cache Valley for a coal burning plant. It has previously been demonstrated that the coal wouldnt be mined in the Valley but imported from other coal fields located in Utah. With this assumption, it would only be the coal burning plant that would be housed in the valley. The benefit to coal, although 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 initial development of the required infrastructure would be a trivial problem. To consider the infrastructure that would be required for a power plant the right size in Cache Valley, other coal fired plants can be review in Utah. The Intermountain Power Plant in Delta UT will be used to model the infrastructure for a similar plant in Cache Valley. The power plant in Delta consists of two units that run General Electric compound steam turbines with boilers housed in three hundred foot houses. There is also a single seven hundred foot tower than can be seen in the figure where emissions are sourced from. Each unit has a power generation capability of roughly 950 MW for a total of 1900 MW from the plant. According to the Intermountain Power Agency, the plan generated over twelve million MW hours of electricity each year. With one million MW hours of electricity generated in a month, it would be sufficient to meet the .3 (Million MW hours) for the projected energy requirement of Cache Valley in 2060. A similar facility would be the requirements of the project but would a construction cost of 4.5 billion dollars would be anticipated for the development of the infrastructure. While this appears to be a possible solution for the coal fired energy plant infrastructure in Cache Valley, is still doesnt seem to be the direction motivated for the future. The intermountain Power Plan is projecting to have completely switched over to natural gas for its energy source by 2025. In conclusion, the coal energy source does not appear to be a solution for electricity generation demands in the future for Cache Valley. While it is currently a common and inexpensive source for energy now, the political regulations and public views are quickly making it an unlikely solution for the future. Even with the clean coal solutions for the future, and the availability of coal reserves, restrictions and inversions in Cache valley make it more difficult to consider burning with any type of emissions is the local area.

FIGURE 4: UTAH COAL FIELDS

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

FIGURE 5: UTAHS AVAILABLE COAL RESOURCES IN 2006

FIGURE 6: INTERMOUNTAIN POWER COAL PLANT IN DELTA, UTAH

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 of the 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. Societal Views & Political Regulations 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 fuel required 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. Geothermal 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. Geothermal 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 (CO ) 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 emissions of other energy sources to geothermal energy.
2 2

A typical geothermal facility uses 404 square meters of 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

FIGURE 7: CO2

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 that usually cannot be detected by humans.

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 near 150C (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 Springs 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 is virtually unexplored, because only fluids have been sampled and their analytical results reported. A thermal-gradient 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 ENERGY Solar energy is the most renew source of energy we are considering. For this proposal we are considering a photovoltaic system. This system has no fuel costs, requires no water, and has no emissions. It still requires daylight and weather patterns severely impact its overall energy production. As more efficient cell become more available we can lessen this impact. Energy Density/Efficiency The Efficiency relies mainly on the type of cell used. The current efficiencies for competing technologies are in the table 1. They range from bulk Silicon cells, cells made from silicon ingots cut into wafers, and thin film, where silicon is deposited in a thin layer on a support structure like glass.[4] Amorphous and thin film are constructed in the same manner, however the material used in their construction are different. Finally Multi-junction cells are a set of cells layered to convert the different wavelengths of light to electricity. Currently there are no large scale M-J power plants planned. Increase demand for solar has pushed for research into more efficient cells we can see this increase in efficiencies in figure 1.

FIGURE 8: GEOTHERMAL HOT SPOT LOCATIONS IN UTAH

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

earlier and stay at there for longer. As for solar collector they are a parabolic mirror that take in and then focus that light onto a solar cell. Cells that use solar collector require a heat sinks otherwise their output drops dramatically.

TABLE 4 [4] Cell Types Bulk Silicon Monocrystalline Polycrystalline Amorphous Thin Film GaAs Cadmium Indium Gallium Selenide (CIGS) Dye Sensitized Multi-Junction GalnP/GaAs/Ge GalnP/GaAs/GalnAs (under 140 suns) 32% 40.8% 26.1% 19.4% 10.4% 25% 20.5% 9.5% Efficiencies

Societal Views & Political Regulations The U.S. federal government currently has a investment tax credit (ITC) for solar projects. The current tax credit is equal to 30 percent of the projects cost. However, it will be stepped down to 10 percent after 2016. At the beginning of construction this project will only have a 10 percent cost reduction if started in 2025. Utah has also enacted a tax credit for renewable energy systems. The investment tax credit is worth 10% of the reasonable install cost for up to $50,000. This credit can be used on a leased system for no more than seven years. The used on a leased system for no more than seven years. The production tax credit only covers wind, geothermal and biomass systems our system doesnt fall under these categories so we are not eligible [1]. Socially speaking solar is seen as a Clean energy. Green peace and other environmental activist see it as the perfect solution. Cost Solar's cost revolves around the manufacture of its cells and operation of the plant. The EIA (Electrical Information Administration) as of 2011 has state that the overall operating cost per kilowatt of solar to be 4.44 cents per kW [8]. This average cost also includes wind and small scale turbines operations. For the cost per watt in terms instillation and manufacture solar cells are currently around 50 cents per watt manufactures are pushing for them to at 36 cents by 2017[9]. These cost reductions are predicted to come from innovations like advanced metallization solutions, diamond wire sawing and increased automation. Environmental Impact Photovoltaic systems do not burn fuel in order to generate energy. The majority of waste generated for the system is construction of the site and manufacture of the cells and modules. For example the manufacture of Thin-film cell produces water waste with heavy metals; Cadmium telluride thin-film solar panel generates cadmium waste water. Californian Photovoltaic companies generate from 2007 to 2011 generated 46 million pound of waste [3]. Cache Valley would not see a majority of this waste production. The only waste that would be on site would come from the vehicles used to transport the cells, modules, tracking units and required infrastructure. This means once completed the site would have zero emissions. However, depending on placement of the facility could impact wildlife. Although the proposed site for this installation is currently farmland so this isnt a large issue. Overall cost would be. Economic Feasibility

Renewability For solar power the fuel source in terms of renewability isnt a problem. Photovoltaic panels take in photons of light from the sun and produce electricity. The suns lifetime is based in billions of years thus the lifetime and renewability of our project cannot be based on this. However the panels do degrade over time. The rate at which they degrade depends on the company that manufactured them. With the industry standard being they retain about 80% of their power output capability after 25 year [5]. Figure 2 shows the different major manufactures guaranteed efficiencies over time.

FIGURE 9: MANUFACTURERS EFFICIENCIES

The total cost for the power plant would be reduced 30 percent if we started before 2016. This is thanks to the ITC stated earlier. After that date price reduction would be 10

FIGURE 10: BEST RESEARCHED EFFICIENCIES OF SOLAR CELLS

percent. Using the Agua Caliente Solar project as our base, the sample facility would cost 1.8 billion dollars [5]. With this projected cost we can assume we would file for a loan from the U.S. Department of Energy to pay for the cost that we could not as a county. For our prototype plant the land require would still be 2400 acres the current land for sale of that size is worth about 3.7 million dollars [2]. We would need to see where this land is located and how much it would cost to link it to the grid. Geographic Feasibility Current solar systems require a large amounts of land to produce the same amount of power Coal and Natural Gas can. Cache County has a large amount of farmland some is currently for sale. Although with the required load of 359.7 GWh per month (.4996 GWh) the system to power it with a 21.5% (.0067m2/kW) efficiency would be about 816 acres of solar panels. Currently there is one piece of land for sale that can fit the required panels. It's a piece 2414.16 acres worth 3.75 million dollars and is currently used for farmland [6]. Comparable sites like Agua Caliente Solar Project, the current largest photovoltaic power plant, uses 2400 acres to annually generate 626 GWh annually.[6] The facility we require would be larger because of weather conditions. If we were to use Sunpower's solar concentrators and tracking array as an example (66.94 m2 per 12.4 kW) [7], the area required for the system drops to 661.1acres this does not

include the extra solar cells required to generate power for overnight. Cache County is in decent area for solar energy. Figure 3 show us being in the mid range of solar energy hitting the earth. The best place for the system would be as far south in the county as we could go. The most ideal would be at the southern end of the state. Sustainability Solar is considered a renewable energy source. The amount of energy that hits the earth in one day is more than we could use in 27 years. This resource will continue long after our project is replaced with a new solar array or fuel source. Weather patterns however will impact overall performance as clouds and inversion can hinder the amount of sun that hits the panel. Available Infrastructure Solar only requires land and a connection to the grid to work as stated in previous section there is, at this moment in time, one area in Cache County. The property is located at 13400 N HIGH CREEK RD, Cove, Utah, 84333. It would be large enough for the panel system converts and required control buildings.

FIGURE 11: SOLAR INTENSITY LEVELS IN THE UNITED STATES

Conclusion Considering these factors this system is not recommended for our power plant proposal. In terms of a primary power source it would only be able to provide us power during the day and optimal conditions, no clouds and low inversion. While its pollution is nonexistent compared with other sources. Its fuel sources reliability hinders it from being a primary source of electricity. Based on this, it would be better suit as a supplementary power source for Cache County. NATURAL GAS Renewability Natural gas, once disregarded as worthless [1], has fast 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 geothermal 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 energydense 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

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] Heat Rate Thermal Efficiency Cycle (Btu/net kWh (3,412 Btu/Heat generated) 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%

Societal Views & Political Regulations While there are a number of regulations on natural 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 refinenatural 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 on government-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 interstate pipelines 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 affect 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 process of 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

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 more consistently 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 electricity generators 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 smallscale 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.

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 been around 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 gasfired power plants a much more cost effective option, and many 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.

Environmental Impact NaturalGas.org cites natural gas as the cleanest 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 fossil 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 societal 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 about half the carbon dioxide that coal emits [18], other non-fossil 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 keep emission 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 past mistakes. 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

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] Energy Source -Plant Type Coal -Conventional Steam -Advanced Steam -Advanced Steam w/CCS Natural Gas -Conventional Combined -Advanced Combined -Advanced Combined w/CCS -Conventional Combustion -Advanced Combustion Nuclear Geothermal Solar Photovoltaic Capacity Factor (%) Levelized Capital Cost Fixed O&M (Operation & Maintenance) 4.1 6.8 8.8 1.7 2.0 4.1 2.7 2.6 11.6 12.0 9.9 Variable O&M (including fuel) Transmission Investment Total System Levelized Cost

85 85 85 87 87 87 30 30 90 92 25

65.7 84.4 88.4 15.8 17.4 34.0 44.2 30.4 83.4 76.2 130.4

29.2 30.7 37.2 48.4 45.0 54.1 80.0 68.2 12.3 0.0 0.0

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.4 3.4 1.1 1.4 4.0

100.1 123.0 135.5 67.1 65.6 93.4 130.3 104.6 108.4 89.6 144.3

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 how much 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.

Geographical Feasibility 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 southwest 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

TABLE 8: UTAHS NATURAL GAS RESERVES SUMMARY BY YEAR [20] (Units in billion cubic feet, unless otherwise noted) Dry Natural Gas Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Natural Gas Non-associated, Wet After Lease Separation Natural Gas Associated-Dissolved, Wet After Least Separation Natural Gas Liquids (Million Barrels) 2006 5,146 5,211 4,894 317 -2007 6,391 6,463 6,095 368 108 2008 6,643 6,714 6,393 321 116 2009 7,257 7,411 6,810 601 -2010 6,981 7,146 6,515 631 -2011 7,857 8,108 7,199 909 --

TABLE 9: WYOMINGS NATURAL GAS RESERVES SUMMARY BY YEAR [21] (Units in billion cubic feet, unless otherwise noted) Dry Natural Gas Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Natural Gas Non-associated, Wet After Lease Separation Natural Gas Associated-Dissolved, Wet After Least Separation Natural Gas Liquids (Million Barrels) 2006 23,549 24,463 24,116 347 -2007 29,710 30,896 30,531 365 1,032 2008 31,143 32,399 32,176 223 1,121 2009 35,283 36,748 36,386 362 -2010 35,074 36,526 36,192 334 -2011 35,290 36,930 36,612 318 --

technology, costs associated with liquefying and regasifying natural gas are being reduced [22].

There is currently a small natural gas power plant 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 plant along with a couple small hydro generation plants that generate 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 here in 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 well 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.

The other large issue with the geographical location is whether or not there is a viable water source within 50 miles of 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/m3) * (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 m3/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. The flow 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. Available Infrastructure 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].

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 environmental drawbacks 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 of 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 indeed handle the necessary water flow rate of this plant, that this plant is very feasible. With the example of the current small natural gas plant here in Logan to go off of, we would have a good foundation to build from. Weve therefore c oncluded that natural gas is the best single energy source for Cache Valley.

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 and China, 16 Nov 12, from http://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 -cleanenergy-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, from http://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, from http://www.governing.com/news/local/AP-EPARules-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, from http://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 the Interior, 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, from http://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 the Interior, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/c1249/c1249.pdf. [7] Directory: Cents Per Kilowatt-Hour. 23 Oct. 2013, from http://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 of Selected Sites, Utah Department of Natural Resources, from http://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 of Selected Sites, Utah Department of Natural Resources, from http://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.

[3] 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/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-gaslng-d_1092.html [5] The Engineering Toolbox, 2013, Classification of Coal. from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/classification -coald_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-theunited-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 Large st 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.natu ralgas.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_dcu_SWY_a.htm [22] Natural Gas Supply Association, 2011, Natural Gas and Technology. from http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/technology.asp#liquified [23] U. S. Energy Information Administration, 2013, Utah: Profile Overview. from http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=UT [24] Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013, How It Works: Water for Natural Gas. from http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our energy-choices/energy-and-water-use/water-energy-electricity-natural-gas.html [25] Angler Guide, 2013, Logan River Flow. from http://rivers.anglerguide.com/flows/hw3.php?forecast=riversobs&gauge=LGNU1 [26] Utah Water Research Laboratory, 2011, Middle Bear - Logan. from http://www.bearriverinfo.org/htm/bear-river-watersheddescription/middle-bear-logan [27] Palacios, Patsy and Luecke, Chris and Robinson, Justin, 2007, Hydrology of the Bear Lake Basin, Utah. from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1588&context=nrei&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dbear%2520lake%2520inflow%2520r ate%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCsQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.usu.edu%252Fc gi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1588%2526context%253Dnrei%26ei%3DAZ2AUpGOGujayAHU3IGoCQ%26usg%3 DAFQjCNFQpy7lDBhi2-o3ZsNBGWAqDytQww%26sig2%3DodGRWJiHZal-v9AMIXReA%26bvm%3Dbv.56146854%2Cd.aWc#search=%22bear%20lake%20inflow%20rate%22

[28] Cache Valley: Background. from http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Public-Interest/Current-Issues/cache-valleyPM/Background/CacheValleyBackground.htm [29] Potter, Alex, 2013, SOCC. from http://loganutah.org/LP/SOCC/