IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/enp/wpaper/eprg1211.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Rationale for Safety Investment in Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine Membrane Reactor Modules

Author

Listed:
  • Reyyan Koc

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA)

  • Nikolaos K. Kazantzis

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA)

  • William J. Nuttall

    (Judge Business School and Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge)

  • Yi Hua Ma

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA)

Abstract

A detailed Net Present Value (NPV) model has been developed to evaluate the economic viability of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle – Membrane Reactor (IGCC-MR) power plant intended to provide an electricity generating and pure H2 (hydrogen) producing technology option with significantly lower air pollutants and CO2 (carbon dioxide) emission levels, where the membrane reactor module design conforms also to basic inherent safety principles. Sources of irreducible uncertainty (market, regulatory and technological) are explicitly recognized, such as the power plant capacity factor, Pd (palladium) price, membrane life-time and CO2 prices (taxes) due to future regulatory action/policies. The effect of the above uncertainty drivers on the project’s/plant’s value is elucidated using a Monte-Carlo simulation technique that enables the propagation of the above uncertain inputs through the NPV-model, and therefore, generate a more realistic distribution of the plant’s value rather than a single-point/estimate that overlooks these uncertainties. The simulation results derived suggest that in the presence of (operational, economic and regulatory) uncertainties, inherently safe membrane reactor technology options integrated into IGCC plants could become economically viable even in the absence of any valuation being placed on human life or quality of life by considering only equipment damage and interruption of business/lost production cost. Comparatively more attractive NPV distribution profiles are obtained when concrete safety risk-reducing measures are taken into account through pre-investment in process safety (equipment) in a pro-active manner, giving further credence to the thesis that process safety investments may result in enhanced economic performance in the presence of irreducible uncertainties.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Reyyan Koc & Nikolaos K. Kazantzis & William J. Nuttall & Yi Hua Ma, 2012. "Economic Rationale for Safety Investment in Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine Membrane Reactor Modules," Working Papers EPRG 1211, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
  • Handle: RePEc:enp:wpaper:eprg1211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/eprg-wp1211.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fabien A. Roques & William J. Nuttall & David M. Newbery & Richard de Neufville & Stephen Connors, 2006. "Nuclear Power: A Hedge against Uncertain Gas and Carbon Prices?," The Energy Journal, , vol. 27(4), pages 1-24, October.
    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. John Foster & Liam Wagner & Phil Wild & Junhua Zhao & Lucas Skoofa & Craig Froome, 2011. "Market and Economic Modelling of the Intelligent Grid: End of Year Report 2009," Energy Economics and Management Group Working Papers 09, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    2. Newbery, David, 2018. "Policies for decarbonizing a liberalized power sector," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-24.
    3. David M. Newbery & David M. Reiner & Robert A. Ritz, 2018. "When is a carbon price floor desirable?," Working Papers EPRG 1816, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    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. Malte Sunderkoetter & Christoph Weber, 2009. "Valuing fuel diversification in optimal investment policies for electricity generation portfolios," EWL Working Papers 0904, University of Duisburg-Essen, Chair for Management Science and Energy Economics, revised Nov 2009.
    6. Newbery, David M., 2016. "Towards a green energy economy? The EU Energy Union’s transition to a low-carbon zero subsidy electricity system – Lessons from the UK’s Electricity Market Reform," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1321-1330.
    7. Newbery, David, 2016. "Missing money and missing markets: Reliability, capacity auctions and interconnectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 401-410.
    8. Heinzel, Christoph, 2008. "Implications of diverging social and private discount rates for investments in the German power industry: a new case for nuclear energy?," Dresden Discussion Paper Series in Economics 03/08, Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Economics.
    9. Zimmermann, Florian & Keles, Dogan, 2022. "State or market: Investments in new nuclear power plants in France and their domestic and cross-border effects," Working Paper Series in Production and Energy 64, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Industrial Production (IIP).
    10. Simon Taylor, 2010. "Nuclear Power and Deregulated Electricity Markets: Lessons from British Energy," Chapters, in: François Lévêque & Jean-Michel Glachant & Julián Barquín & Christian von Hirschhausen & Franziska Ho (ed.), Security of Energy Supply in Europe, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. David Newbery, 2016. "Questioning the EU Target Electricity Model – how should it be adapted to deliver the Trilemma?," Working Papers EPRG 1617, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    12. María del Carmen Gómez-Ríos & David Juárez-Luna, 2019. "Costo de generación eléctrica incorporando externalidades ambientales: Mezcla óptima de tecnologías de carga base," Remef - Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas Nueva Época REMEF (The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance), Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos de Finanzas, IMEF, vol. 14(3), pages 353-377, Julio - S.
    13. D. Finon & F. Roques, 2008. "Financing Arrangements and Industrial Organisation for New Nuclear Build in Electricity Markets," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Intersentia, vol. 9(3), pages 247-282, September.
    14. Mondello, Gérard, 2015. "Splitting nuclear parks or not? The third party liability role," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 553-559.
    15. Malischek, Raimund & Trüby, Johannes, 2016. "The future of nuclear power in France: an analysis of the costs of phasing-out," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 908-921.
    16. Hauteclocque, Adrien de & Glachant, Jean-Michel, 2009. "Long-term energy supply contracts in European competition policy: Fuzzy not crazy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5399-5407, December.
    17. Meunier, Guy, 2010. "Capacity choice, technology mix and market power," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1306-1315, November.
    18. Berthélemy, Michel & Escobar Rangel, Lina, 2015. "Nuclear reactors' construction costs: The role of lead-time, standardization and technological progress," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 118-130.
    19. Gross, Robert & Blyth, William & Heptonstall, Philip, 2010. "Risks, revenues and investment in electricity generation: Why policy needs to look beyond costs," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 796-804, July.
    20. Kessides, Ioannis N., 2010. "Nuclear power: Understanding the economic risks and uncertainties," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 3849-3864, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Membrane reactors; IGCC; Hydrogen production; Process intensification; Process safety; Process economic analysis; Net Present Value; Uncertainty; Monte Carlo simulation.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G31 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Capital Budgeting; Fixed Investment and Inventory Studies
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:enp:wpaper:eprg1211. 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: Ruth Newman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/jicamuk.html .

    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.