IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i20p8414-d427053.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Assessment of Civil Nuclear ‘Enabling’ and ‘Amelioration’ Factors for EROI Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Nick King

    (Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK)

  • Aled Jones

    (Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK)

Abstract

Nuclear fission is a primary energy source that may be important to future efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The energy return on investment (EROI) of any energy source is important because aggregate global EROI must be maintained at a minimum level to support complex global systems. Previous studies considering nuclear EROI have emphasised energy investments linked to ‘enabling’ factors (upstream activities that enable the operation of nuclear technology such as fuel enrichment), have attracted controversy, and challenges also persist regarding system boundary definition. This study advocates that improved consideration of ‘amelioration’ factors (downstream activities that remediate nuclear externalities such as decommissioning), is an important task for calculating a realistic nuclear EROI. Components of the ‘nuclear system’ were analysed and energy investment for five representative ‘amelioration’ factors calculated. These ‘first approximation’ calculations made numerous assumptions, exclusions, and simplifications, but accounted for a greater level of detail than had previously been attempted. The amelioration energy costs were found to be approximately 1.5–2 orders of magnitude lower than representative ‘enabling’ costs. Future refinement of the ‘amelioration’ factors may indicate that they are of greater significance, and may also have characteristics making them systemically significant, notably in terms of timing in relation to future global EROI declines.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick King & Aled Jones, 2020. "An Assessment of Civil Nuclear ‘Enabling’ and ‘Amelioration’ Factors for EROI Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-34, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:20:p:8414-:d:427053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8414/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8414/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles A. S. Hall & Stephen Balogh & David J.R. Murphy, 2009. "What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-23, January.
    2. Weißbach, D. & Ruprecht, G. & Huke, A. & Czerski, K. & Gottlieb, S. & Hussein, A., 2013. "Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 210-221.
    3. Michael Carbajales-Dale, 2019. "When is EROI Not EROI?," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 1-4, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Diesendorf, M. & Wiedmann, T., 2020. "Implications of Trends in Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) for Transitioning to Renewable Electricity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Paul E. Brockway & Anne Owen & Lina I. Brand-Correa & Lukas Hardt, 2019. "Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 612-621, July.
    7. Ajay K. Gupta & Charles A.S. Hall, 2011. "A Review of the Past and Current State of EROI Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(10), pages 1-14, October.
    8. Thomas Love & Cindy Isenhour, 2016. "Energy and economy: Recognizing high-energy modernity as a historical period," Economic Anthropology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(1), pages 6-16, January.
    9. Friedrichs, Jörg, 2010. "Global energy crunch: How different parts of the world would react to a peak oil scenario," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4562-4569, August.
    10. David J. Murphy & Charles A.S. Hall & Michael Dale & Cutler Cleveland, 2011. "Order from Chaos: A Preliminary Protocol for Determining the EROI of Fuels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(10), pages 1-20, October.
    11. Jarvis, Andrew, 2018. "Energy Returns and The Long-run Growth of Global Industrial Society," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 722-729.
    12. Ian Goldin & Mike Mariathasan, 2015. "The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Risks, and What to Do about It," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10214-2.
    13. Marco Raugei, 2019. "Net energy analysis must not compare apples and oranges," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 86-88, February.
    14. 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. Nick King & Aled Jones, 2021. "An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-32, July.

    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. Carlos de Castro & Iñigo Capellán-Pérez, 2020. "Standard, Point of Use, and Extended Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) from Comprehensive Material Requirements of Present Global Wind, Solar, and Hydro Power Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-43, June.
    2. Delannoy, Louis & Longaretti, Pierre-Yves & Murphy, David J. & Prados, Emmanuel, 2021. "Peak oil and the low-carbon energy transition: A net-energy perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    3. Marco Vittorio Ecclesia & João Santos & Paul E. Brockway & Tiago Domingos, 2022. "A Comprehensive Societal Energy Return on Investment Study of Portugal Reveals a Low but Stable Value," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Nick King & Aled Jones, 2021. "An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-32, July.
    5. David J. Murphy & Marco Raugei & Michael Carbajales-Dale & Brenda Rubio Estrada, 2022. "Energy Return on Investment of Major Energy Carriers: Review and Harmonization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Hongshuo Yan & Lianyong Feng & Jianliang Wang & Yuanying Chi & Yue Ma, 2021. "A Comprehensive Net Energy Analysis and Outlook of Energy System in China," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Patrick Moriarty & Damon Honnery, 2019. "Energy Accounting for a Renewable Energy Future," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    8. Louis Delannoy & Pierre-Yves Longaretti & David. J. Murphy & Emmanuel Prados, 2021. "Assessing Global Long-Term EROI of Gas: A Net-Energy Perspective on the Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-16, August.
    9. Hall, Charles A.S. & Lambert, Jessica G. & Balogh, Stephen B., 2014. "EROI of different fuels and the implications for society," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 141-152.
    10. Aljoša Slameršak & Giorgos Kallis & Daniel W. O’Neill, 2022. "Energy requirements and carbon emissions for a low-carbon energy transition," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Patrick Moriarty & Damon Honnery, 2020. "Feasibility of a 100% Global Renewable Energy System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, October.
    12. Sampedro, Jon & Kyle, Page & Ramig, Christopher W. & Tanner, Daniel & Huster, Jonathan E. & Wise, Marshall A., 2021. "Dynamic linking of upstream energy and freight demands for bio and fossil energy pathways in the Global Change Analysis Model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 302(C).
    13. Adrien Fabre, 2018. "Evolution of EROIs of Electricity Until 2050: Estimation Using the Input-Output Model THEMIS," Policy Papers 2018.09, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    14. da Silva Neves, Marcus Vinicius & Szklo, Alexandre & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2023. "Fossil fuel facilities exergy return for a frontier of analysis incorporating CO2 capture: The case of a coal power plant," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 284(C).
    15. Kevin Pahud & Greg de Temmerman, 2022. "Overview of the EROI, a tool to measure energy availability through the energy transition," Post-Print hal-03780085, HAL.
    16. Zeke Marshall & Paul E. Brockway, 2020. "A Net Energy Analysis of the Global Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fishing and Forestry System," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1-27, June.
    17. Hasret Sahin & A. A. Solomon & Arman Aghahosseini & Christian Breyer, 2024. "Systemwide energy return on investment in a sustainable transition towards net zero power systems," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    18. Charles Guay-Boutet, 2023. "Estimating the Disaggregated Standard EROI of Canadian Oil Sands Extracted via Open-pit Mining, 1997–2016," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Zhaoyang Kong & Xiucheng Dong & Bo Xu & Rui Li & Qiang Yin & Cuifang Song, 2015. "EROI Analysis for Direct Coal Liquefaction without and with CCS: The Case of the Shenhua DCL Project in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22, January.
    20. Jacques, Pierre & Delannoy, Louis & Andrieu, Baptiste & Yilmaz, Devrim & Jeanmart, Hervé & Godin, Antoine, 2023. "Assessing the economic consequences of an energy transition through a biophysical stock-flow consistent model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:20:p:8414-:d:427053. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.