IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v304y2021ics0306261921010175.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic solution for low carbon process heat: A horizontal, compact high temperature gas reactor

Author

Listed:
  • Stewart, W.R.
  • Velez-Lopez, E.
  • Wiser, R.
  • Shirvan, K.

Abstract

In 2018, nuclear energy generated 55% of United States’ and one third of the world’s carbon free electricity, making nuclear energy a key tool in efforts to mitigate climate change before 2050. However, the current nuclear technology, light water reactors (LWRs), is limited to 300°C, so it cannot be used to decarbonize industrial process heat which accounts for 12% of US greenhouse gas emissions. High temperature gas reactors (HTGRs) can meet the high temperature demand with carbon free nuclear heat. The estimated cost of HTGRs, such as the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), are even higher than state-of-the-art LWRs. In this paper, we expanded our nuclear cost estimating tool to include HTGRs and find that the NGNP overnight capital costs were 32% higher than an advanced LWR per unit capacity. The higher cost will naturally result in larger risk to cost overrun as recently experienced by larger LWRs in western nations. With a design-to-build mindset to minimize cost and construction risk, we introduce the horizontal, compact HTGR (HC-HTGR). The reactor core and steam generator are mounted horizontally on rails and in-line with one another, decreasing the size of the reactor building relative to the power capacity four times when compared to traditional HTGRs. The HC-HTGR reduced overnight civil structure costs by 42%, indirect costs by 38%, and total capital costs by 20% from NGNP. We discussed the required engineering of new systems for the HC-HTGR including vessel supports, the reactor cavity cooling system, and steam generator design. Finally, we estimated the fuel and operations costs of the HC-HTGR, and a survey of low-carbon industrial process heat technology showed the HC-HTGR can deliver a highly competitive levelized cost of heat in the range of $6.13–12.48/GJ.

Suggested Citation

  • Stewart, W.R. & Velez-Lopez, E. & Wiser, R. & Shirvan, K., 2021. "Economic solution for low carbon process heat: A horizontal, compact high temperature gas reactor," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:304:y:2021:i:c:s0306261921010175
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117650
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921010175
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117650?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. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    2. McMillan, Colin A. & Ruth, Mark, 2019. "Using facility-level emissions data to estimate the technical potential of alternative thermal sources to meet industrial heat demand," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 1077-1090.
    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. Song, Houde & Song, Meiqi & Liu, Xiaojing, 2022. "Online autonomous calibration of digital twins using machine learning with application to nuclear power plants," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 326(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. Diane Coyle & Marianne Sensier, 2020. "The imperial treasury: appraisal methodology and regional economic performance in the UK," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 283-295, March.
    2. Schreiner, Lena & Madlener, Reinhard, 2022. "Investing in power grid infrastructure as a flexibility option: A DSGE assessment for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Alexander Budzier & Bent Flyvbjerg & Andi Garavaglia & Andreas Leed, 2019. "Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis of Nuclear Waste Storage," Papers 1901.11123, arXiv.org.
    4. Francesco Di Maddaloni & Roya Derakhshan, 2019. "A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    6. Love, Peter E.D. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic & Welde, Morten & Odeck, James, 2017. "Light rail transit cost performance: Opportunities for future-proofing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 27-39.
    7. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier, 2018. "Report for the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry," Papers 1805.12106, arXiv.org.
    8. Karen Lucas & Ian Philips & Ersilia Verlinghieri, 2022. "A mixed methods approach to the social assessment of transport infrastructure projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 271-291, February.
    9. Shutian Zhou & Guofang Zhai & Yijun Shi, 2018. "What Drives the Rise of Metro Developments in China? Evidence from Nantong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Jin, Zhizhou & Zeng, Saixing & Chen, Hongquan & Shi, Jonathan Jingsheng, 2022. "Explaining the expansion performance in technological capability of participants in megaprojects: A configurational approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    11. Ginés de Rus, 2015. "La política de infraestructuras en España. Una reforma pendiente," Policy Papers 2015-08, FEDEA.
    12. Ginés de Rus & Javier Campos & Daniel Graham & M. Pilar Socorro & Jorge Valido, 2020. "Evaluación Económica de Proyectos y Políticas de Transporte: Metodología y Aplicaciones. Parte 1: Metodología para el análisis coste-beneficio de proyectos y políticas de transporte," Working Papers 2020-11, FEDEA.
    13. Muhammad Zeeshan Fareed & Qin Su, 2022. "Project Governance and Project Performance: The Moderating Role of Top Management Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, February.
    14. Peter Adekunle & Clinton Aigbavboa & Opeoluwa Akinradewo & Ayodeji Oke & Douglas Aghimien, 2022. "Construction Information Management: Benefits to the Construction Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Chen, Xiaoyan & Locatelli, Giorgio & Zhang, Xinyue & Gong, Yunhao & He, Qinghua, 2022. "Firm and project innovation outcome measures in infrastructure megaprojects: An interpretive structural modelling approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Antonio Estache & Stéphane Saussier, 2014. "Public-Private Partnerships and Efficiency: A Short Assessment," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 12(3), pages 08-13, October.
    17. Avri Eitan, 2021. "Promoting Renewable Energy to Cope with Climate Change—Policy Discourse in Israel," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    18. Aigner, Rafael & Weber, Katharina, 2017. "The Fehmarn Belt duopoly – Can the ferry compete with a tunnel?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 1-15.
    19. Anthony E. Boardman & Matti Siemiatycki & Aidan R. Vining, 2016. "The Theory and Evidence Concerning Public-Private Partnerships in Canada and Elsewhere," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(12), March.
    20. Shutian Zhou & Guofang Zhai & Yuwen Lu & Yijun Shi, 2021. "The development of urban mega-projects in China: A case study of Nantong’s metro project," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(4), pages 759-774, May.

    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:appene:v:304:y:2021:i:c:s0306261921010175. 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.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    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.