Some energy services and industrial processes-such as long-distance freight transport, air travel, highly reliable electricity, and steel and cement manufacturing-are particularly difficult to provide without adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Rapidly growing demand for these services, combined with long lead times for technology development and long lifetimes of energy infrastructure, make decarbonization of these services both essential and urgent. We examine barriers and opportunities associated with these difficult-to-decarbonize services and processes, including possible technological solutions and research and development priorities. A range of existing technologies could meet future demands for these services and processes without net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, but their use may depend on a combination of cost reductions via research and innovation, as well as coordinated deployment and integration of operations across currently discrete energy industries.

/pdf/net-zero-emissions-energy-systems-2u8li57knv.pdf

Net-zero emissions energy systems

Models show that to avert dangerous levels of climate change, global carbon dioxide emissions must fall to zero later this century. Most of these emissions arise from energy use. Davis et al. review what it would take to achieve decarbonization of the energy system. Some parts of the energy system are particularly difficult to decarbonize, including aviation, long-distance transport, steel and cement production, and provision of a reliable electricity supply. Current technologies and pathways show promise, but integration of now-discrete energy sectors and industrial processes is vital to achieve minimal emissions. Net emissions of CO2 by human activities - including not only energy services and industrial production but also land use and agriculture - must approach zero in order to stabilize global mean temperature. Energy services such as light-duty transportation, heating, cooling, and lighting may be relatively straightforward to decarbonize by electrifying and generating electricity from variable renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar) and dispatchable ("on-demand") nonrenewable sources (including nuclear energy and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage). However, other energy services essential to modern civilization entail emissions that are likely to be more difficult to fully eliminate. These difficult-to-decarbonize energy services include aviation, long-distance transport, and shipping; production of carbon-intensive structural materials such as steel and cement; and provision of a reliable electricity supply that meets varying demand. Moreover, demand for such services and products is projected to increase substantially over this century. The long-lived infrastructure built today, for better or worse, will shape the future. Here, we review the special challenges associated with an energy system that does not add any CO2 to the atmosphere (a net-zero emissions energy system). We discuss prominent technological opportunities and barriers for eliminating and/or managing emissions related to the difficult-to-decarbonize services; pitfalls in which near-term actions may make it more difficult or costly to achieve the net-zero emissions goal; and critical areas for research, development, demonstration, and deployment. It may take decades to research, develop, and deploy these new technologies. DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9793

Net-zero Emissions Energy Systems

The Role of Firm Low-Carbon Electricity Resources in Deep Decarbonization of Power Generation

Deep decarbonization of electricity production is a societal challenge that can be achieved with high penetrations of variable renewable energy. We investigate the potential of energy storage technologies to reduce renewable curtailment and CO2 emissions in California and Texas under varying emissions taxes. We show that without energy storage, adding 60 GW of renewables to California achieves 72% CO2 reductions (relative to a zero-renewables case) with close to one third of renewables being curtailed. Some energy storage technologies, on the other hand, allow 90% CO2 reductions from the same renewable penetrations with as little as 9% renewable curtailment. In Texas, the same renewable-deployment level leads to 54% emissions reductions with close to 3% renewable curtailment. Energy storage can allow 57% emissions reductions with as little as 0.3% renewable curtailment. We also find that generator flexibility can reduce curtailment and the amount of energy storage that is needed for renewable integration. Existing studies on the economic feasibility of energy storage are system-specific without considering the decarbonisation of electricity production or impacts of GHG taxes. Here the authors applied an optimization model to investigate the economic viability of nice selected energy storage technologies in California and found that renewable curtailment and GHG reductions highly depend on capital costs of energy storage.

/pdf/the-role-of-energy-storage-in-deep-decarbonization-of-2lvx29bmpa.pdf

The role of energy storage in deep decarbonization of electricity production

This article pertains to the most newly-discovered and most sensational mode of transmutation, in which the entry of a neutron into a massive atom-nucleus brings about an internal explosion in which the nucleus is “fissured” or divided into two fragments which share the total mass and charge between them in nearly equal proportions, (In all other modes of transmutation except those affecting the very lightest elements, the division is into fragments of very unequal mass and charge.) The conversion of rest-mass into kinetic energy, or (as is more commonly said) the release of energy, is unprecedented in scale. A multitude of radioactive bodies, many hitherto unknown, is formed; and there is spontaneous emission of fresh neutrons in great quantities, possibly sufficient to convert the process once initiated into a self-perpetuating one under realizable conditions.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/6731005/6769463/06769469.pdf

Nuclear fission

The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy

.................................................................................................................................. iii PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................v SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................xv ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... xxi NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................................xxv 1.  INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 1.1  Background ...................................................................................................................1 1.2  Related Program Interfaces and Related Key Evaluations ...........................................2 1.3  NTRD Cost Basis .........................................................................................................3 1.4  Cost Module Description ..............................................................................................3 1.5  Structure of the Report ..................................................................................................5 2.  NTRD COST BASIS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS .............................................................7 2.1  Process Description ......................................................................................................7 2.2  Fuel Cycle Data Collection ...........................................................................................8 2.3  Cost Data Normalization ..............................................................................................8 2.3.1  Government versus Private Facility Ownership ...............................................8 2.3.2  Technology Readiness Level (Program/Project R&D Status) ..........................8 2.3.3  Code of Accounts/Work Breakdown Structure ................................................8 2.3.4  Common Currency (U.S.$) .............................................................................11 2.3.5  Common Year (Current Year Basis) ..............................................................11 2.3.6  Differences in Cost Estimating Methodologies (Top Down vs. Bottom Up) ..................................................................................................................11 2.4  Cost Data Verification ................................................................................................11 2.5  Data Gap Analysis ......................................................................................................12 2.6  Cost Data Documentation ...........................................................................................12 3.  Cost Estimating Methods .....................................................................................................15 3.1.1  Analogy ...........................................................................................................16 3.1.2  Parametric .......................................................................................................16 3.1.3  Engineering .....................................................................................................17 3.2  Cost Indices ................................................................................................................18 4.  FUEL CYCLE REFERENCE COST MODULES ..............................................................19 Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis – 2017 Edition xviii September 29, 2017 NTRD-FCO-2017-000265 (September 2017) xviii Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis 5.  STRATEGY COSTING PROCEDURE ..............................................................................25 5.1  Process Description ....................................................................................................25 5.2  Define Scenarios .........................................................................................................26 5.3  Define Parameters .......................................................................................................26 5.4  Cost Module Coupling ................................................................................................26 5.5  Cost Module Scaling ...................................................................................................26 5.6  Handling of Credits for U, Pu, and Other Materials ...................................................27 5.7  Develop Total Fuel Cycle Costs .................................................................................27 5.8  Develop Total Cost of Electricity Costs .....................................................................27 5.9  Economics of Private Sector vs. Regulated Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities ................28 6.  ECONOMIC COMPARSION GUIDELINES .....................................................................29 7.  USE OF PRICE DATA IN NTRD COST-BASIS ESTIMATES ........................................31 7.1  Introduction and Scope ...............................................................................................31 7.2  Costs and Prices Defined ............................................................................................31 7.3  Cost and Prices in the Context of the Cost Basis Report ............................................33 7.3.1  Objectives for Cost Basis Reports ..................................................................33 7.3.2  Short Run, Long Run, and Very Long Run ....................................................34 7.3.3  Observed and Predicted Prices .......................................................................34 7.3.4  Comparison of Costs with Prices – The Problem of Market Penetration ......................................................................................................34 7.4  Price Data Irrelevance .................................................................................................35 7.4.1  Constrained Markets and Price Volatility .......................................................35 7.4.2  “Implicit Competition” ...................................................................................35 7.4.3  Reference Quantities .......................................................................................36 7.5  Summary of Principles ...............................................................................................37 8.  ESCALATION CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................39 9.  DISCOUNT RATE FOR NUCLEAR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ......................................45 9.1  Background Information .............................................................................................45 9.2  Discounting in the Private Sector ...............................................................................48 9.2.1  The Chicago Study .........................................................................................49 9.2.2  WACC Numerical Values ..............................................................................50 9.2.3  Debt to Equity Ratios ......................................................................................50 9.2.4  Regulation .......................................................................................................51 9.2.5  The MIT Studies of 2009 and of 2011 ............................................................51 9.2.6  A Note on Alternative Approaches to the Pricing of Risk for Nuclear Projects ...........................................................................................................52 9.2.7  Recommended Discount Rate .........................................................................52 9.3  Discounting in the Public Sector ................................................................................53 9.3.1  Discounting US Federal Projects, OMB Circular A-94 and A-4 ...................53 Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis 2017 Edition September 29, 2017 xix NTRD-FCO-2017-000265 (September 2017) xix Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis 9.3.2  Intergenerational Discounting ........................................................................54 10.  TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE COST BASIS REPORT ............................59 10.1  Introduction .................................................................................................................59 10.2  Representation of Uncertainty in the AFC-CBR ........................................................59 10.3  Treatment of Correlated Uncertainties .......................................................................60 11.  MODULARITY ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................63 12.  ECONOMIC COMPUTER MODELS ................................................................................67 12.1  Integration of Cost Modules into Cost Models ...........................................................67 12.2  Computer Software and Simulations ..........................................................................67 12.2.1  NFCSim ..........................................................................................................67 12.2.2  Dynamic Model of Nuclear Development (DYMOND) ................................67 12.2.3  Harvard Spreadsheets .....................................................................................68 12.2.4  Generation IV Economic Modeling Working Group Levelized Cost of Electricity Model ....

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis – 2017 Edition

This work explores the technical challenges associated with flexible operation for nuclear power plants (NPPs) and evaluates whether a flexible operational mode could improve the profitability of n...

Profitability Evaluation of Load-Following Nuclear Units with Physics-Induced Operational Constraints

/pdf/report-on-the-economic-optimization-of-a-demonstration-case-2sp8u5ikje.pdf

Report on the Economic Optimization of a Demonstration Case for a Static N-R HES Configuration using RAVEN

The purpose of this work is to present a new methodology and the associated computational tools developed within the U.S. Department of Energy Fuel Cycle Options Campaign to quantify the economic p...

Francesco Ganda

Papers

The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis – 2017 Edition

Profitability Evaluation of Load-Following Nuclear Units with Physics-Induced Operational Constraints

Report on the Economic Optimization of a Demonstration Case for a Static N-R HES Configuration using RAVEN

Economic Analysis of Complex Nuclear Fuel Cycles with NE-COST