United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-84-100 Jan. 1985
SER& Project Summary
Feasibility of Producing
Commodities and Electricity for
Space Shuttle Operations at
Vandenberg Air Force Base
P.J. Murin, K.A. Ferland, A.F. Jones, S.N. Husband,
R.L. Leonard, and W.C. Thomas
The report gives results of an analysis
of the technical and economic feasibility
of the on-site production of commodities
(liquid propellents and gases) and
electricity to support space shuttle
launch activities at Vandenberg Air
Force Base (VAFB).
Both commercial and developing
systems were considered. Systems to
supply electricity were considered to
meet continuous electricity demands
only, critical launch demands only, or
both continuous and critical launch
demands. In addition to systems to
supply commodities only, several
systems to produce both commodities
and electricity were considered. All
systems were evaluated for technical
risk, conversion efficiency, environmen-
tal impacts, reliability, and economics.
A major finding is that over the near
term (1992 to 2013), VAFB cannot
produce electricity at a price competitive
with purchased electricity. Also, unless
hydrogen markets on the West Coast
fundamentally change, there is no
incentive to produce liquid hydrogen
(the commodity of primary interest) on-
site at VAFB. These and other findings
were used to recommend possible
follow-up actions to the USAF.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the same
title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
The technical and economic feasibility
of the on-site production of commodities
(liquid propellants and gases) and electri-
city to support space shuttle launch activ-
ities at Vandenberg Air Force Base
(VAFB) was analyzed. This is a summary
of the principal conclusions and recom-
mendations of the completed feasibility
study.
The two-fold purpose of this study was:
(1) because of the potential to reduce the
costs and improve the reliability of supply
of electrical power and commodities, the
USAF was interested in evaluating
alternatives for the on-site production of
commodities and electrical power at its
Western shuttle launch site at VAFB; and
(2) because the existing backup power
supply at VAFB is unable to support
shuttle launch operations if the primary
power supply fails, and can support only
the shutdown of launch operations, the
Air Force was interested in determining
the most cost effective ways of providing
a reliable backup power supply that could
allow the completion of launch operations.
The backup power systems could be used
alone or as part of systems used for the
continuous production of commodities
and electricity.
The feasibility study covered the period
from 1992 (the year presumed for the
start-up of on-site plants) to 2013 (the
presumed end of the useful life of on-site
plants). Both commercial and developmen-
tal concepts were considered. The energy
and feedstock resources considered for
use in on-site plants were: fuel oils,
-------
natural gas, coal, wind, water, and solar.
The products from these on-site plants
included electrical power and the following
commodities: liquid hydrogen, liquid
oxygen, and liquid and gaseous nitrogen.
A total of 19 technologies were considered
for energy and feedstock conversion,
generation, and storage, including:
external combustion (boilers), steam
turbines, gas turbines, combined cycle
turbines, internal combustion (diesels),
gasification (coal), partial oxidation (oil),
steam reforming (natural gas), fuel cells,
electrolysis, air separation, solar central
receivers, solar photovoltaics, pumped
hydro storage, and wind turbines.
The preceding concepts were considered
in the following applications: 1) continuous
production of electricity (with and without
capability to supply reliable backup
power for completing shuttle launches),
2) critical launch backup power, 3)
commodities production, and 4) production
of both commodities and electricity. After
evaluating the production options, the
best systems were identified by consider-
ing technical risk, conversion efficiency,
environmental impacts, reliability, and
economics.
Conclusions
The four major conclusions of this
study are:
1) Continuous electricity production
• Except as noted below, VAFB
cannot produce its own electricity
at a price competitive with pur-
chased electricity. Fossil fuel
based systems for producing
electricity are not economically
viable due to their relatively small
size and consequently their low
conversion efficiencies. Most
non-fuel based systems, such as
solar photovoltaics, are not econ-
omically viable because of their
high capital cost and relatively
low operating factor. The economic
viability of electricity production
at VAFB is also adversely affected
by the relatively low value of
electricity and the relatively high
cost of fuels at VAFB.
• Electric power from small wind
turbines located on well-exposed
ridgecrests in southern VAFB
appears to be economically viable.
Additional study is required to
verify the available wind resource
at VAFB, to provide a more detailed
design and cost analysis, and to
determine the long-term reliability,
operabilrty, and performance charac-
teristics of a wind turbine system.
2) Critical launch demand power
• Pumped hydro storage systems
are the lowest cost options for
supplying critical launch demand
power at the shuttle launch
complex, unless more than about
24 hours of pumped hydro storage
capacity is needed. (Twenty-four
hours of storage is about twice the
11 hour duration of critical launch
demands.) These storage systems
could also be used daily for VAFB
power load management. Gas
turbine and diesel systems, the
next best systems to meet critical
launch demands, will be more
costly than pumped hydro systems.
• Except for the possible use of
pumped hydro storage in power
load management, none of the
systems considered to supply
critical launch demand power
should be considered for continuous
service. Continuous service could
reduce system reliability, and the
high fuel, operating and mainte-
nance costs make continuous
service uneconomic.
3) Commodities production
• Because the USAF currently pur-
chases liquid hydrogen on the
West Coast at prices substantially
below commercial market prices
(—50% discount),f/?ere is currently
no incentive to produce liquid
hydrogen on-site at VAFB. This
situation is expected to continue
as long as excess liquid hydrogen
production capacity exists on the
West Coast. If the excess liquid
hydrogen production capacity
disappears, the USAF will probably
have to pay commercial prices for
liquid hydrogen. At that time, on-
site production of liquid hydrogen
(by the steam reforming of natural
gas or the electrolysis of water)
becomes economically attractive.
It is not possible to predict when, if
ever, the USAF would begin to pay
commercial prices for liquid hydro-
gen.
• The on-site production of liquid
oxygen, liquid nitrogen, and gase-
ous nitrogen by air separation is
somewhat less expensive than
the continued purchase of these
commodities.
4) Commodities and electricity produc-
tion
• The use of a polygeneration con-
cept, such as the coal gasifica-
tion/combined cycle turbine con-
cept being considered at the
Kennedy Space Center (to pro-
duce electrical power, liquid
hydrogen, and gaseous nitrogen), I
is uneconomic at VAFB. At VAFB,
polygeneration capacities are
small, electricity and liquid hydro-
gen prices or values are low, coal
costs are relatively high, and rel-
atively more electricity (less val-
uable than liquid hydrogen) would
be produced.
• Novel wind turbine combinations
(with electrolysis or air separation)
are potentially attractive pending
verification of the wind resource
at VAFB.
Overall system evaluation and ranking
summaries shown in Tables 1 through 3
are highlighted below.
• Despite the differences in basic unit
reliabilities shown in Table 1 through
3, by adding spare units, all systems
except wind turbines and solar
systems can be designed to meet the
reliability constraints that would al-
low the on-time completion of shut-
tle launches.
• Except for the steam reforming of
natural gas to produce liquid hydro-
gen, all fossil fuel based systems
have negative ratings in at least two
of the four major areas of evaluation
(technical, economic, environmental,
and reliability). The most common M
negative ratings for fossil fuel based ™
systems are in economic and environ-
mental areas. Systems featuring the
gasification of coal have negative
ratings in all four areas of evaluation.
• All non-fuel based systems (wind
turbines, solar photovoltaics, solar
central receivers, pumped hydro
storage, air separation, electrolysis,
and combinations of wind turbines
with air separation or electrolysis)
have positive or neutral ratings in at
least three of the four areas of
evaluation. Air separation systems
have positive ratings in all four
areas. Under current trends, steam
reforming and electrolysis to produce
liquid hydrogen are negatively rated
in the economic area. But, if the
USAF had to pay commercial prices
for liquid hydrogen, steam reforming
and electrolysis would be positively
rated in the economic area as well.
Solar photovoltaic systems have a
negative rating in the economic
area, based on the current best
estimates of costs for mature solar
photovoltaic systems in 1992. Since
much on-going research is aimed at
reducing the costs of photovoltaic
cells and systems, the economic
rating could eventually change to
positive.
-------
Table!. Overall System Ratings
System
Areas of Evaluation
Technical* Economic'' Environmental Reliability
Electricity Production
Boiler/Steam Turbine
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Stoker coal
AFBC
Gas Turbine
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Combined Cycle Turbine
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil (via
partial oxidation)
Coal (via gasification)
Diesels
Fuel Cells
Natural gas (via
steam reforming)
No. 6 fuel oil (via
partial oxidation)
Coal (via gasification)
Wind Turbines
Solar Central Receiver
Solar Photovoltaics
Pumped Hydro
Commodities Production
Steam Reforming
Oil Partial Oxidation
Coal Gasification
Air Separation
Electrolysis
Coal Gasification/Air
Separation
Commodities and Electricity
Production
Wind Turbines/Electrolysis
Wind Turbines/Air Separation
Coal Gasification/Combined
Cycle Turbine
+
+
0
0
+
•f
0
0
-A"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
0
+
+
0/+*
0/+f
"+" denotes well developed, widely applied systems in a/I areas; "0" denotes systems whose
components are well developed but commercial applications are few or do not exist; "—" denotes
systems with one or more components still in demonstration.
b"+" denotes positive net present value (NPV); "—" denotes negative NPV.
c"+" denotes inherently clean system or system with minor emissions;"—" denotes system which
generates hazardous wastes and/or requires air emission offsets.
""+" denotes high single-unit reliability (—95%); "0" denotes moderate single-unit reliability
(—90%); "—" denotes low single-unit reliability (—85%).
e"-/+": "—" under government LHz price trends, "+" under commercial LH2 price trends.
'"0/+" for wind turbines, "+" for electrolysis or air separation.
Recommendations
The major project recommendations
are in the areas of: 1) continuous
electricity production, 2) critical launch
demand power, 3) commodities produc-
tion, and 4) commodities and electricity
production.
1) Continuous electricity production
• In the near term, continue to rely
on power purchased from the
utility grid.
• Perform more detailed evaluation
of wind turbine systems. Verify
wind resource at locations on
well-exposed ridgecrests in south-
ern VAFB. Perform more detailed
design and economic analysis.
Purchase test wind turbines of
~200 kW (possible cost sharing
with vendor) and perform testing
to determine reliability, operability,
and performance characteristics.
Investigate potential for interfe-
rences with communications.
Investigate combination with
pumped hydro storage to meet
critical launch demands and to
smooth out production variations.
• Monitor future developments in
solar photovoltaics, particularly
with respect to capital investment
costs.
• Consider in additional preliminary
cost estimates coal systems larger
than 50 MW; these systems have
overall conversion efficiencies
much greater than the small
systems considered in this study.
Excess power can be exported to
the utility grid.
2) Critical launch demand power
• Perform more detailed evaluation
of pumped hydro storage with
respect to site-specific construction
design features at VAFB. Perform
more detailed design and economic
analysis. Define power duration
requirements (12 vs. 24 hours or
more). Perform more detailed
comparative analysis of pumped
hydro, diesel, and gas turbines.
Also, further examine existing
and alternate grid power supply
reliability data for time between
failures and time of repairs.
3) Commodities production
• Perform more detailed and cost
studies of air separation (for
production of liquid oxygen, liquid
nitrogen, and gaseous nitrogen).
Although it is marginally feasible
to produce these commodities on-
site, public health and safety
concerns over transportation of
-------
cryogenics could provide an addi-
tional incentive for on-site produc-
tion.
• In the near term, continue to pur-
chase liquid hydrogen from com-
mercial suppliers.
• Monitor future trends in commer-
cial and government liquid hydro-
gen prices to anticipate escalation
of liquid hydrogen prices to
commercial price levels.
4) Commodities and electricity produc-
tion
• after more detailed investigation
of wind turbine systems (as dis-
cussed above), perform detailed
analysis of wind turbine systems
in combination with electrolysis
or air separation.
Table 2. Most Attractive Systems for Continuous Production of Electricity and/or
Commodities"
Areas of Evaluation
System
Technical*1 Economic" Environmental* Reliability*
Electricity Production
Wind Turbines
Solar Photovoltaics
Commodities Production
Steam Reforming
Air Separation
Electrolysis
Commodities and Electricity
Production
Wind Turbines/Electrolysis
Wind Turbines/Air Separation
0
0
-A'
+
-A'
0A9
0/+9
aSystems shown here are those systems from Table 1 which have at most only one negative or zero
rating in the four areas of evaluation.
b"+" denotes well developed, widely applied systems in all areas; "0" denotes systems whose
components are well developed but commercial applications are few or do not exist.
c"+" denotes positive net present value (NPV); "—" denotes negative NPV.
""+" denotes inherently clean system or system with minor emissions.
e"+" denotes high single-unit reliability (—95%); "0" denotes moderate single-unit reliability
(-90%).
'"-" under government LHi price trends. "+" under commercial LH2 price trends.
9"0/+":"0" for wind turbines, "+" for electrolysis or air separation.
Table 3. Most Attractive Systems for Supplying Critical Launch Power Demand
Areas of Evaluation"
System
Technical11 Economic0 Environmental Reliability*
Gas Turbine
Natural Gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Diesel Engines
Pumped Hydro
0
0
0
0
0
aSystems shown here have lower capital costs than alternative systems such as gas-fired boiler/
turbines. Positive ratings obviously indicate positive factors, while zero ratings indicate neutral
factors, and negative ratings indicate negative factors.
b"+" denotes well developed, widely applied systems in all areas.
cFor systems supplying critical launch power demands only, the most important economic
parameter is the total capital investment; because of their short hours of operation, operational
costs are of lesser importance. The relative ranking of these systems varies with the set of design
bases. The gas turbine systems would be the least expensive of the four options if: 1) pumped
hydro alternatives were required to have capacities greater than 24 to 36 hours, and 2) diesel
engine alternatives required multiple units to achieve the 95% reliability criterion. Based on a
preliminary analysis, new diesel engines may be more reliable than gas turbines and thus could
meet the 95% reliability criterion with single units. But if multiple diesel units were required,
equivalent gas turbine systems would be less expensive.
""+" denotes inherently clean system or system with minor emissions. "— "denotes system which
generates hazardous wastes and/or requires air emission offsets.
e"+" denotes high single-unit reliability (~95%). "0" denotes moderate single-unit reliability
(-90%).
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985/559-111/10775
-------
P. Murin, K. Ferland. A. Jones, S. Husband, R. Leonard, and W. Thomas are with
Radian Corporation, Austin, TX 78759.
Robert C. Lagemann is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Feasibility of Producing Commodities and Electricity
for Space Shuttle Operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base," (Order No. PB
85-137 099; Cost: $23.50. subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
OC00329 PS
'GtNCr
230 S DEARBCRN STREET
CHICAGO IL
------- |