Search

In the United States, buildings account for 35% of total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, making them important contributors to decarbonization. Carbon intensities in the power grid are time-varying and can fluctuate significantly within hours, so shifting building loads in response to the carbon intensities can reduce a building's operational carbon emissions. This paper presents a rule-based carbon responsive control framework that controls the setpoints of thermostatically controlled loads responding to the grid's carbon emission signals in real time. Based on this framework, four controllers are proposed with different combinations of carbon accounting methods and control rules. To evaluate their performance, we performed simulation studies using models of a 27-home, all-electric, net zero energy residential community located in Basalt, Colorado, United States. The carbon intensity data of four future years from the Cambium data set are adopted to account for the evolving resource mix in the power grid. Various performance metrics, including energy consumption, carbon emission, energy cost, and thermal discomfort, were used to evaluate the performance of the controllers. Sensitivity analysis was also conducted to determine how the control thresholds and intervals affect the controllers' performance. Simulation results indicate that the carbon responsive controllers can reduce the homes' annual carbon emissions by 6.0% to 20.5%. However, the energy consumption increased by 0.9% to 6.7%, except in one scenario where it decreased by 2.2%. Compared to the baseline, the change in energy cost was between −2.9% and 3.4%, and thermal discomfort was also maintained within an acceptable range. The little impact on energy cost and thermal discomfort indicates there are no potential roadblocks for customer acceptance when rolling out the controllers in utility programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Detailed cost estimation of advanced nuclear plants methodology extended to HTGRs. • Large HTGRs shown to have 32% overnight capital costs than recent LWRs. • The HC-HTGR reduced overnight capital costs 20% from large HTGR costs. • Discussion of required engineering of new systems for the HC-HTGR. • Low-carbon high temperature process heat in the range of $6.13–12.48/GJ. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many energy systems models have sought to develop pathways for deep decarbonization of the global energy system. Most often, these pathways minimize system costs or greenhouse gas emissions; with few exceptions, they ignore the constraints imposed by political, social, and economic factors that slow transition processes, making them prone to producing implausible decarbonization pathways. This paper integrates a key socio-technical factor—social acceptance of low-carbon nuclear power—into an energy systems model to illustrate how it alters the optimal energy generation mix. The United States was chosen as the example, but the approach itself is designed to be general and applicable to any region of interest. An empirically grounded risk tolerance model is developed to characterize acceptance of nuclear power and estimate an upper-bound deployment limit for the technology. Illustrative scenarios are presented to improve our understanding of how the socio-technical constraints that exist in the real world can alter deep decarbonization pathways. The cost-optimal generation portfolio to achieve net zero CO 2 emissions by 2050 primarily relies on nuclear power. If risk tolerance concerns constrain nuclear deployment to socially acceptable levels, deep decarbonization scenarios are up to 11% more expensive than the reference scenario and require low-carbon options to be available and replace the reduced nuclear share. Results from this novel framework improve our representation of the effect of social acceptance on the adoption and diffusion of energy technologies. They also contribute to a growing literature that seeks to firmly embed the social sciences in climate and energy policy. • Plausible decarbonization pathways must also account for social constraints. • We combine a social risk tolerance model with an energy system optimization model. • We assess the role of social acceptance in constraining nuclear power's deployment. • Social acceptance limits nuclear's share by as much as 71% in CO 2 reduction pathways. • Decision-making can be strengthened with integration of socio-technical analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]