IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v162y2018icp491-504.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Radiation enhanced chemical production: Improving the value proposition of nuclear power

Author

Listed:
  • Schmeda-Lopez, Diego
  • McConnaughy, Thomas B.
  • McFarland, Eric W.

Abstract

Nuclear power is one of the means for large-scale CO2-free heat and electricity generation. Commercial designs, developed decades ago, have not adopted technological innovations and struggle to be cost-competitive with state-of-the-art fossil-fuel power systems. Though fuel is relatively inexpensive, nuclear power plants are expensive to build and produce only low-value electricity. One strategy to improve the process economics is to use unique characteristics of nuclear reactors to provide additional sources of revenue by co-producing higher value products. A conceptual process is analysed, which combines a molten salt nuclear power reactor and a chemical process using the reactor's gamma radiation to facilitate the production of propylene. This facility is able to co-produce electricity and high volume commodity chemicals using, otherwise wasted radiation. The conceptual process model suggests that integration of units producing an energy product with one that produces more valuable chemicals leads to significant economic benefits for the overall facility. Despite the improvements, the system studied is unable to deliver an acceptable return on investment for small power plants independent of the size of the chemical plant integrated. Conversely, large plants are capable of delivering acceptable return on investment, in some cases generating returns comparable to other modern investment options.

Suggested Citation

  • Schmeda-Lopez, Diego & McConnaughy, Thomas B. & McFarland, Eric W., 2018. "Radiation enhanced chemical production: Improving the value proposition of nuclear power," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 491-504.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:162:y:2018:i:c:p:491-504
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544218315056
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.208?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harris, Grant & Heptonstall, Phil & Gross, Robert & Handley, David, 2013. "Cost estimates for nuclear power in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 431-442.
    2. Roth, Michael Buchdahl & Jaramillo, Paulina, 2017. "Going nuclear for climate mitigation: An analysis of the cost effectiveness of preserving existing U.S. nuclear power plants as a carbon avoidance strategy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 67-77.
    3. Koomey, Jonathan & Hultman, Nathan E., 2007. "A reactor-level analysis of busbar costs for US nuclear plants, 1970-2005," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5630-5642, November.
    4. Paula Gould, 2009. "Medical isotope shortage reaches crisis level," Nature, Nature, vol. 460(7253), pages 312-313, July.
    5. Lovering, Jessica R. & Yip, Arthur & Nordhaus, Ted, 2016. "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 371-382.
    6. Kessides, Ioannis N., 2010. "Nuclear power: Understanding the economic risks and uncertainties," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 3849-3864, August.
    7. Weisser, Daniel, 2007. "A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1543-1559.
    8. Alonso, Gustavo & Bilbao, Sama & Valle, Edmundo del, 2016. "Economic competitiveness of small modular reactors versus coal and combined cycle plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 867-879.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matsuo, Yuhji & Nei, Hisanori, 2019. "An analysis of the historical trends in nuclear power plant construction costs: The Japanese experience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 180-198.
    2. Jacobson, Mark Z. & Delucchi, Mark A., 2011. "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1154-1169, March.
    3. Lovering, Jessica R. & Yip, Arthur & Nordhaus, Ted, 2016. "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 371-382.
    4. Linares, Pedro & Conchado, Adela, 2013. "The economics of new nuclear power plants in liberalized electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 119-125.
    5. Koomey, Jonathan & Hultman, Nathan E. & Grubler, Arnulf, 2017. "A reply to “Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 640-643.
    6. Wealer, B. & Bauer, S. & Hirschhausen, C.v. & Kemfert, C. & Göke, L., 2021. "Investing into third generation nuclear power plants - Review of recent trends and analysis of future investments using Monte Carlo Simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    7. Besmann, Theodore M., 2010. "Projections of US GHG reductions from nuclear power new capacity based on historic levels of investment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2431-2437, May.
    8. Black, Geoffrey A. & Aydogan, Fatih & Koerner, Cassandra L., 2019. "Economic viability of light water small modular nuclear reactors: General methodology and vendor data," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 248-258.
    9. Portugal-Pereira, J. & Ferreira, P. & Cunha, J. & Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R. & Araújo, M., 2018. "Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 158-166.
    10. Price, James & Keppo, Ilkka & Dodds, Paul E., 2023. "The role of new nuclear power in the UK's net-zero emissions energy system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 262(PA).
    11. Yuan, Mengyao & Tong, Fan & Duan, Lei & Dowling, Jacqueline A. & Davis, Steven J. & Lewis, Nathan S. & Caldeira, Ken, 2020. "Would firm generators facilitate or deter variable renewable energy in a carbon-free electricity system?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    12. Boccard, Nicolas, 2014. "The cost of nuclear electricity: France after Fukushima," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 450-461.
    13. Elaheh Shobeiri & Filippo Genco & Daniel Hoornweg & Akira Tokuhiro, 2023. "Small Modular Reactor Deployment and Obstacles to Be Overcome," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Ahmad, Ali & Ramana, M.V., 2014. "Too costly to matter: Economics of nuclear power for Saudi Arabia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 682-694.
    15. Bistline, John E.T. & Blanford, Geoffrey J., 2020. "Value of technology in the U.S. electric power sector: Impacts of full portfolios and technological change on the costs of meeting decarbonization goals," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    16. Peter A. Lang, 2017. "Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    17. Adler, David B. & Jha, Akshaya & Severnini, Edson, 2020. "Considering the nuclear option: Hidden benefits and social costs of nuclear power in the U.S. since 1970," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    18. Kan, Xiaoming & Hedenus, Fredrik & Reichenberg, Lina, 2020. "The cost of a future low-carbon electricity system without nuclear power – the case of Sweden," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    19. Lovering, Jessica R. & Nordhaus, Ted & Yip, Arthur, 2017. "Apples and oranges: Comparing nuclear construction costs across nations, time periods, and technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 650-654.
    20. Siddons, Craig & Allan, Grant & McIntyre, Stuart, 2015. "How accurate are forecasts of costs of energy? A methodological contribution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 224-228.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:162:y:2018:i:c:p:491-504. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.