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.
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.
hi@scite.ai
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.