The most recent assessments conducted by the International Energy Agency indicate that natural gas accounts for the majority of Nigeria’s fossil fuel-derived electricity generation, with crude oil serving mostly as a backup source. Fossil fuel-generated electricity represents 80% of the country’s total. In addition, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Nigeria in 2018 (101.3014 Mtons) demonstrated a 3.83% increase from 2017. The purpose of this study is to suggest an alternate energy supply mix to meet future electrical demand and reduce CO2 emissions in Nigeria. The Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental Impact (MESSAGE) was used in this study to model two case situations of the energy supply systems in Nigeria to determine the best energy supply technology to meet future demand. The Simplified Approach to Estimating Electricity Generation’s External Costs and Impacts (SIMPACTS) code is also used to estimate the environmental impacts and resulting damage costs during normal operation of various electricity generation technologies. Results of the first scenario show that gas and oil power plants are the optimal choice for Nigeria to meet future energy needs with no bound on CO2 emission. If Nigeria adopts CO2 emission restrictions to comply with the Paris Agreement’s target of decreasing worldwide mean temperature rise to 1.5 °C, the best option is nuclear power plants (NPPs). The MESSAGE results demonstrate that both fossil fuels and NPPs are the optimal electricity-generating technologies to meet Nigeria’s future energy demand. The SIMPACTS code results demonstrate that NPPs have the lowest damage costs because of their low environmental impact during normal operation. Therefore, NPP technology is the most environmentally friendly technology and the best choice for the optimization of future electrical technology to meet the demand. The result from this study will serve as a reference source in modeling long-term energy mix therefore reducing CO2 emission in Nigeria.
In February 2016, the Egyptian government introduced Egyptian Vision 2030. An important pillar of this vision is energy. Egyptian Vision 2030 presented renewable energy as the best solution to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the energy sector. Egypt’s electricity comes from various power plants; conventional thermal plants generate over 90% in which gas-fired generation accounts for 75% of the total output. Following the increase in natural gas (NG) projects in Egypt, NG is the dominant electricity source. Based on the pillars of the sustainable development strategy of Egypt, the county can increase dependence on renewable energies, and reduce CO2 emissions and bound electricity production from natural gas. We aim to determine future energy generation strategies from various power plant technologies depending on these three principles. To make the picture more clear and complete, we compared the environmental impacts and external costs of fossil, hydro, and nuclear power plants in Egypt. We used two computer codes: the model for energy supply strategy alternatives and their general environmental impacts (MESSAGE) and the simplified approach for estimating environmental impacts of electricity generation (SIMPACTS). The MESSAGE code modeled the energy-supply systems to determine the best energy-supply technology to meet future energy demands. SIMPACTS estimated the environmental impact and damage costs associated with electricity generation. The results indicated that nuclear power plants and gas power plants are long-term electricity supply sources. Nuclear power plants entail low total external-damage costs, in addition to low environmental impact during normal operation. We conclude that nuclear power plants are the best alternative long-term electricity-generation choice for Egypt to meet future electricity demands.
Natural and artificial ionizing radiation can be harmful to human health when they come into contact with people and the environment. Transport of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) and consumer products containing NORM in the public domain is inevitable owing to their potential applications. This study evaluates the dose and risk to the public from transport accidents of NORM and consumer products. Radiological and physical data were obtained from previous literature. The median and maximum values of radioactivity concentration were applied to consumer products and NORM data, which serve as an input. An external dose rate at 1 m from a transported shipment was calculated using MicroShield® Pro version 12.11 code, which serves as input to RADTRAN 6 code. Based on developed transport accident scenarios, a RADTRAN 6 code was used to estimate collective dose and risk. The sensitivity analysis was conducted by considering the variation of release, aerosol, and respirable fractions of radionuclides at 0.1%, 1%, 10%, and 100% from the transported shipment during an accident, respectively. The results of dose and risk to the general public because of the damage of the shipment container following a fire accident are below the annual regulatory limits of 1 man-Sv recommended by IAEA transport regulation of 2018. The sensitivity results of all NORMs and associated consumer products are also below the regulatory limits. Therefore, radiological safety can be ensured in the event of a transport accident involving the transit of NORM and consumer products containing NORM.
In June 2021, the United States (US) Department of Energy (DOE) hosted the first-ever Hydrogen Shot Summit, which lasted for two days. More than 3000 stockholders around the world were convened at the summit to discuss how low-cost clean hydrogen production would be a huge step towards solving climate change. Hydrogen is a dynamic fuel that can be used across all industrial sectors to lower the carbon intensity. By 2030, the summit hopes to have developed a means to reduce the current cost of clean hydrogen by 80%; i.e., to USD 1 per kilogram. Because of the importance of clean hydrogen towards carbon neutrality, the overall DOE budget for Fiscal Year 2021 is USD 35.4 billion and the total budget for DOE hydrogen activities in Fiscal Year 2021 is USD 285 million, representing 0.81% of the total DOE budget for 2021. The DOE hydrogen budget of 2021 is estimated to increase to USD 400 million in Fiscal Year 2022. The global hydrogen market is growing, and the US is playing an active role in ensuring its growth. Depending on the electricity source used, the electrolysis of hydrogen can have no greenhouse gas emissions. When assessing the advantages and economic viability of hydrogen production by electrolysis, it is important to take into account the source of the necessary electricity as well as emissions resulting from electricity generation. In this study, to evaluate the levelized cost of nuclear hydrogen production, the International Atomic Energy Agency Hydrogen Economic Evaluation Program is used to model four types of LWRs: Exelon’s Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in New York; Palo Verde NPP in Arizona; Davis-Besse NPP in Ohio; and Prairie Island NPP in Minnesota. Each of these LWRs has a different method of hydrogen production. The results show that the total cost of hydrogen production for Exelon’s Nine Mile Point NPP, Palo Verde NPP, Davis-Besse NPP, and Prairie Island NPP was 4.85 ± 0.66, 4.77 ± 1.36, 3.09 ± 1.19, and 0.69 ± 0.03 USD/kg, respectively. These findings show that, among the nuclear reactors, the cost of nuclear hydrogen production using Exelon’s Nine Mile Point NPP reactor is the highest, whereas the cost of nuclear hydrogen production using the Prairie Island NPP reactor is the lowest.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.