IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v114y2016icp84-99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The environmental competitiveness of small modular reactors: A life cycle study

Author

Listed:
  • Carless, Travis S.
  • Griffin, W. Michael
  • Fischbeck, Paul S.

Abstract

This work conducts a prospective attribution life cycle assessment of an SMR. Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses are used to account for the uncertainties in the analysis. The analysis finds that the mean (and 90% confidence interval) life cycle GHG emissions of the Westinghouse SMR (W-SMR) to be 9.1 g of CO2-eq/kwh (5.9–13.2 g of CO2-eq/kwh) and the Westinghouse AP1000 to be 8.4 g of CO2-eq/kwh (5.5–12.1 g of CO2-eq/kwh). The GHG emissions of the AP1000 are 9% less than the W-SMR. However, when the nuclear fuel cycle is not included in the analysis the GHG emissions for the W-SMR and the AP1000 are effectively the same given the inherent uncertainties in the analysis. The analysis finds that both types of plants stochastically dominate the Generation II 4 loop SNUPPS. The mean (and 90% confidence interval) life cycle GHG emissions of the SNUPPS is 13.6 g of CO2-eq/kwh (10.5–17.3 g of CO2-eq/kwh). While the AP1000 has the benefits of economies of scale, the W-SMR's modular ability enables it to make up some of the difference through efficiencies in construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning.

Suggested Citation

  • Carless, Travis S. & Griffin, W. Michael & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2016. "The environmental competitiveness of small modular reactors: A life cycle study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 84-99.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:114:y:2016:i:c:p:84-99
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544216310350
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.111?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. Fthenakis, Vasilis M. & Kim, Hyung Chul, 2007. "Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: A life-cycle study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2549-2557, April.
    2. Vujić, Jasmina & Bergmann, Ryan M. & Škoda, Radek & Miletić, Marija, 2012. "Small modular reactors: Simpler, safer, cheaper?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 288-295.
    3. Ethan S. Warner & Garvin A. Heath, 2012. "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(s1), pages 73-92, April.
    4. John Quale & Matthew J. Eckelman & Kyle W. Williams & Greg Sloditskie & Julie B. Zimmerman, 2012. "Construction Matters: Comparing Environmental Impacts of Building Modular and Conventional Homes in the United States," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(2), pages 243-253, April.
    5. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2940-2953, August.
    6. Voorspools, Kris R. & Brouwers, Els A. & D'haeseleer, William D., 2000. "Energy content and indirect greenhouse gas emissions embedded in [`]emission-free' power plants: results for the Low Countries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 307-330, November.
    7. Beerten, Jef & Laes, Erik & Meskens, Gaston & D'haeseleer, William, 2009. "Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear life cycle: A balanced appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5056-5068, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Samuele Lo Piano & Lorenzo Benini, 2022. "A critical perspective on uncertainty appraisal and sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 763-781, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Lin He & Chang-Ling Li & Qing-Yun Nie & Yan Men & Hai Shao & Jiang Zhu, 2017. "Core Abilities Evaluation Index System Exploration and Empirical Study on Distributed PV-Generation Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Carlo L. Vinoya & Aristotle T. Ubando & Alvin B. Culaba & Wei-Hsin Chen, 2023. "State-of-the-Art Review of Small Modular Reactors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-30, April.
    5. Carless, Travis S. & Talabi, Sola M. & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2019. "Risk and regulatory considerations for small modular reactor emergency planning zones based on passive decontamination potential," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 740-756.
    6. Pablo Fernández-Arias & Diego Vergara & Álvaro Antón-Sancho, 2023. "Bibliometric Review and Technical Summary of PWR Small Modular Reactors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-15, July.
    7. Haneklaus, Nils & Qvist, Staffan & Gładysz, Paweł & Bartela, Łukasz, 2023. "Why coal-fired power plants should get nuclear-ready," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    8. Comidy, Liam J.F. & Staples, Mark D. & Barrett, Steven R.H., 2019. "Technical, economic, and environmental assessment of liquid fuel production on aircraft carriers," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    9. Marco Raugei & Mashael Kamran & Allan Hutchinson, 2020. "A Prospective Net Energy and Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of the UK Electricity Grid," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-28, May.
    10. Cartelle Barros, Juan José & Lara Coira, Manuel & de la Cruz López, María Pilar & del Caño Gochi, Alfredo & Soares, Isabel, 2020. "Probabilistic multicriteria environmental assessment of power plants: A global approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).

    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. Turconi, Roberto & Boldrin, Alessio & Astrup, Thomas, 2013. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 555-565.
    2. Pomponi, Francesco & Hart, Jim, 2021. "The greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy – Life cycle assessment of a European pressurised reactor," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    3. Alexander T. Dale & André Frossard Pereira de Lucena & Joe Marriott & Bruno Soares Moreira Cesar Borba & Roberto Schaeffer & Melissa M. Bilec, 2013. "Modeling Future Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Environmental Impacts of Electricity Supplies in Brazil," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-27, July.
    4. Muellner, Nikolaus & Arnold, Nikolaus & Gufler, Klaus & Kromp, Wolfgang & Renneberg, Wolfgang & Liebert, Wolfgang, 2021. "Nuclear energy - The solution to climate change?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    5. Verbruggen, Aviel & Laes, Erik & Lemmens, Sanne, 2014. "Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission power," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 16-28.
    6. Nian, Victor & Chou, S.K. & Su, Bin & Bauly, John, 2014. "Life cycle analysis on carbon emissions from power generation – The nuclear energy example," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 68-82.
    7. Sheldon, Seth & Hadian, Saeed & Zik, Ory, 2015. "Beyond carbon: Quantifying environmental externalities as energy for hydroelectric and nuclear power," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 36-44.
    8. Pfenninger, Stefan & Keirstead, James, 2015. "Comparing concentrating solar and nuclear power as baseload providers using the example of South Africa," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 303-314.
    9. Tsai, Bi-Huei & Chang, Chih-Jen & Chang, Chun-Hsien, 2016. "Elucidating the consumption and CO2 emissions of fossil fuels and low-carbon energy in the United States using Lotka–Volterra models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 416-424.
    10. Jānis Krūmiņš & Māris Kļaviņš, 2023. "Investigating the Potential of Nuclear Energy in Achieving a Carbon-Free Energy Future," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-31, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2940-2953, August.
    13. Treyer, Karin & Bauer, Christian & Simons, Andrew, 2014. "Human health impacts in the life cycle of future European electricity generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 31-44.
    14. Feng, Kuishuang & Hubacek, Klaus & Siu, Yim Ling & Li, Xin, 2014. "The energy and water nexus in Chinese electricity production: A hybrid life cycle analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 342-355.
    15. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2009. "Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 1082-1088, June.
    16. Mauro Lafratta & Matthew Leach & Rex B. Thorpe & Mark Willcocks & Eve Germain & Sabeha K. Ouki & Achame Shana & Jacquetta Lee, 2021. "Economic and Carbon Costs of Electricity Balancing Services: The Need for Secure Flexible Low-Carbon Generation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Scarlat, Nicolae & Prussi, Matteo & Padella, Monica, 2022. "Quantification of the carbon intensity of electricity produced and used in Europe," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    18. Brook, Barry W., 2012. "Could nuclear fission energy, etc., solve the greenhouse problem? The affirmative case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 4-8.
    19. Okunlola, Ayodeji & Davis, Matthew & Kumar, Amit, 2023. "Assessing the cost competitiveness of electrolytic hydrogen production from small modular nuclear reactor-based power plants: A price-following perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 346(C).
    20. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard & Gamble, Tim R., 2012. "Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 451-465.

    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:114:y:2016:i:c:p:84-99. 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.