Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Cost credit”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4

Grid-Integrated Production of Fischer-Tropsch Synfuels from Nuclear Power

Idaho National Laboratory (INL) investigates the relative economic profitability of an integrated energy system (IES) coupling an NPP with a synfuel production process at selected case study locations across the United States. In the synfuel IES, a high-temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) plant is thermally and electrically coupled with an NPP to produce zero-carbon hydrogen. The synthetic fuel is produced from this H 2 combined with a CO 2 supply using the reverse water gas shift process followed by the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reaction. This analysis considers a system in which the CO 2 is sourced from regional CO 2 emitters via the construction and operation of pipeline-based CO 2 supply networks. Locating the FT plant at the same site as the NPP and HTSE plants enables the NPP to provide zero-carbon heat and power to the HTSE plant and zero-carbon power to the FT plant as well as avoid the requirement for long-distance H 2 product transport from the HTSE plant to the FT plant. Hydrogen storage is used to enable the NPP to dispatch power to the electrical grid (instead of the HTSE plant) when grid demand increases, thus enabling the FT plant to continue to operate in a steady-state production mode. The ability to cease hydrogen production for several hours within each day enables the NPP to provide power to the grid to balance the electricity market during peak periods and maximize revenues for the nuclear synfuel IES. The FT process design considered has a 99% carbon conversion efficiency. The use of nuclear energy and nuclear energy-derived hydrogen enables synfuel production to achieve this high level of carbon utilization. Additionally, the life-cycle carbon emissions of the nuclear-based synfuel production process are very low, with WTW emissions of approximately 25 gCO 2 e/MJ, including steam credits (generated from FT process excess heat), and approximately 7 gCO 2 e/MJ, if steam credits are excluded. This compares favorably with the WTW emissions of 90.5 gCO 2 e/MJ for a compression-ignition, direct injection (CIDI) vehicle with a fuel economy of 31.6 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (MPGGE), using low-sulfur diesel produced using conventional petroleum production and refining processes. Several NPPs in various regions of the U.S. are considered as case study analyses. Supply locations and transportation via pipeline of the CO 2 feedstock to the NPP site are analyzed through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) CO 2 Transport Cost model. The team finds that the amount of CO 2 generated by different sectors is sufficient for the synfuel production process at all locations considered. The CO 2 transportation costs are functions of the distance of the source to the NPP location, the CO 2 capture cost at the source, and the quantity of CO 2 transported. Historical electricity prices for the NPP case study locations are collected and analyzed. Monthly average prices, price range, and duration of negative-price periods vary among these locations. For each location, an auto-regressive moving average (ARMA) model is trained on historical electricity price data. ARMA validation is done to ensure the synthetic price distributions represent one of historical prices with high fidelity. Synthetic time series from these ARMA models are used in a coupled dispatch and system optimization in the Holistic Energy Resource Optimization Network (HERON) to compute the differential net present value (NPV) of the IES. The team finds that this econometric is positive, ranging from $14M–1.3bn (2020) depending on the location. The optimal synfuel IES configuration to obtain this increase in NPV often maximizes the size of the synfuel production process with regards to the size of the NPP. However, the team shows that the NPP still plays a stabilizing role for the grid: In periods of high prices and high loads, more electricity from the NPP is sent to the grid. A high variability of electricity prices and extreme maximum prices tend to drive up electricity production. While it requires significant investment, the synfuel IES could increase the economic profitability for the existing fleet of LWRs across the country while still maintaining the grid stabilizer role of NPPs. During its lifetime, the main costs for the nuclear synfuel IES are the carbon feedstock transportation costs, followed by the capital expenses (CAPEX) and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs while the revenue comes first from the IRA H 2 production tax credit (PTC) and then from the sales of synfuel products. The profitability of the synfuel IES is most sensitive to the value of the hydrogen PTC and the synfuel products as well as the cost of the carbon feedstock, highlighting the importance of governmental incentives regarding hydrogen, carbon emissions, and synfuel in driving the deployment of future nuclear synfuel IESs.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Techno-Economic, Feasibility, and Life Cycle Analysis of Renewable Propane: 2025 Update

To clarify the current and future landscape for renewable propane (RP) production, this work evaluates the value proposition of recovering RP from existing and planned hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) biorefineries and surveys emerging technologies under development or deployment. HEFA biorefineries co-produce a propane-rich fuel gas stream, normally used to meet HEFA process heat requirements, from which propane can be recovered and sold to create an additional revenue stream alongside liquid transportation fuels such as renewable diesel (RD) and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). This report updates and extends a 2022 analysis of RP recovery from HEFA facilities by escalating capital and operating costs to 2024 prices, incorporating recent policy developments (including the Section 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit), evaluating RP recovery for both RD- and SAF-focused HEFA facilities at two scales (3,000 and 75,000 barrels per day of feedstock), and quantifying the impact of RP recovery on HEFA liquid-fuel carbon intensity (CI) and associated tax credits using the 45ZCF-GREET model. For a 3,000 BPD RD-focused HEFA facility, approximately 3.5 million gallons per year (MGPY) of RP can be recovered; in this base case, the estimated payback period is 18 months based on the total installed cost of the RP recovery equipment and 36 months based on the total capital investment for the entire RP recovery project. The payback period is slightly shorter for the analogous SAF-focused configuration (approximately 4.3 MGPY RP). Sensitivity analysis shows that CAPEX magnitude, RP recovery plant scale, and CI-driven tax credit valuations are the dominant determinants of project viability. RP recovery may increase the CI of HEFA liquid fuels, which can reduce liquid-fuel tax credits (a key revenue stream for the HEFA biorefinery) and lengthen payback periods. However, RP recovery generally remains economically favorable across a wide range of plausible scenarios and market conditions. The report also summarizes emerging pathways that could expand future RP supply.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Techno-Economic Analysis of Synthetic Fuels Pathways Integrated with Light Water Reactors

The purpose of this work is to identify, model, and compare two possible synfuel production routes utilizing CO 2 as the feedstock. Heat from an LWR nuclear plant is integrated wherever possible as a means to positively affect the economics of the LWR. Process and economic modeling for a conceptual synfuel production plant co-located (or in near proximity) with an LWR is presented, including the cost of CO 2 captured from an ethanol plant, compressed, and transported to the LWR hybrid plant, co-electrolysis of the CO 2 with water in a solid oxide electrolyzing cell (SOEC) system to produce syngas, and thermo-catalytic conversion of the syngas to transportation fuel. The hybrid LWR/synfuels plant is assumed to be located within 50-150 miles of an ethanol plant, e.g., located in the Midwest region of the United States. Performance and nth plant economics for the co-electrolysis-based processes are evaluated and compared with biomass-gasification-based technology for the synfuel routes considered. Sensitivity analysis around the price of CO 2 and electricity, two of the major cost drivers, is presented for each case. Consideration of a carbon credit is also included in the sensitivity analysis.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Techno-Economic Analysis of Synthetic Fuels Pathways Integrated with Light Water Reactors

The purpose of this work is to identify, model, perform techno-economic analysis, and compare two possible synfuel production routes utilizing CO 2 as the feedstock. Heat from an LWR nuclear plant is integrated wherever possible to positively affect the economics of the LWR by converting power to fuels during times of low grid electricity demand. Process and economic modeling for a conceptual synfuel production plant co-located (or in near proximity) with an LWR is presented, including the cost of CO 2 captured from an ethanol plant, compressed, and transported to the LWR hybrid plant, co-electrolysis of the CO 2 with water in a solid oxide electrolyzing cell (SOEC) system to produce syngas, and thermocatalytic conversion of the syngas to transportation fuel. The hybrid LWR/synfuels plant is assumed to be located within 50–150 miles of an ethanol plant (e.g., located in the midwest region of the United States). Performance and nth-plant economics for the co-electrolysis-based processes are evaluated and compared with biomass-gasification-based technology for the synfuel routes considered. Sensitivity analysis around the price of CO 2 and electricity, two of the major cost drivers, is presented for each case. Consideration of a carbon credit is also included in the sensitivity analysis.

10 SYNTHETIC FUELS↗

Systems Analysis of Biomass and Coal Co-firing Power Plants with Deep Carbon Capture Toward Net-zero Emissions

Achieving a net-zero emission economy in the United States requires integrating diverse low-carbon and negative-emission technologies into the existing fossil fuel-dominant power fleet. Potential technologies from the low-carbon portfolio include renewable power, fossil power with carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC). Renewable power is a clean energy source but has to pair with costly battery storage to provide dispatchable electricity. Fossil power with CCS offers dispatchable electricity yet still relies on DAC to offset residual emissions, even when deploying deep CCS with more than 90% CO2 capture. Coal-biomass co-firing with CCS, a subset of BECCS, is a reliable energy production technology that can be retrofitted from existing electricity generation units (EGUs). Power plant retrofit maximizes the use of the current U.S. coal power fleet without the need for large-scale deployment of new renewable power, battery storage, or DAC. Retrofitting coal-biomass co-firing with deep CCS in EGUs is a promising option, but not a universal solution. Biomass co-firing at a power plant introduces economic challenges and indirectly poses pressure on land and water resources. Meanwhile, retrofitting deep CCS affects plant efficiency and raises electricity generation costs. Overall, the technical feasibility and economic viability of plant retrofits vary across EGUs, as they are contingent upon the regional availability of biomass, unit-specific characteristics, site-specific fuel supply costs, and adjacent CO2 storage potential. Government incentives like 45Q can improve the retrofit viability, though the impact requires further quantification. A comprehensive analysis at the unit level is essential to address the question regarding the fate of the U.S. coal-fired electricity generation fleet toward the net-zero emission goal. This study conducts a systematic techno-economic-environmental assessment of EGUs to identify the viability of biomass co-firing and deep CCS retrofits in the U.S. coal-fired power fleet. Specifically, it characterizes the techno-economic performance of deep carbon capture, estimates life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and conducts a fleet-level assessment on retrofit viability. The key objectives are (1) to estimate the unit-specific performance and retrofitted cost under various biomass co-firing levels and CO2 capture rates; (2) to determine the possibility of reaching net-zero emission at the fleet level; (3) to quantify the cumulative capacities that are suitable for plant retrofits under current and future biomass supply scenarios; and (4) to improve the understanding of policy impacts on such retrofits to help the power sector’s transition to a net-zero economy. Techno-economic Model of Deep Carbon Capture. This study develops the performance and economic models for Monoethanolamine-based post-combustion CO2 capture at 95–99% capture rates. The process is simulated in Aspen Plus, analyzing the performance of carbon capture technology by varying the plant sizes, solvent lean loading, CO2 concentrations, and flue gas inlet temperature. Based on the key inputs and output parameters of CO2 capture, a reduced-order performance model of deep carbon capture is formulated. In addition, an engineering-economic model integrating the performance metrics is developed to estimate the capital as well as operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Capital cost estimations follow the framework of the Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM) and incorporate data regressions from three technical reports by IECM, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The O&M cost estimation utilizes the actual inventory consumption rate and labor requirements. Both performance and cost models are embedded into IECM v13.0-beta, a fossil-fuel power plant modeling tool. Life Cycle Assessment of Power Plants. This study estimates the GHG emissions of power plants through life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA scope includes fuel supply, combustion-based power generation, and CO2 transport and storage. The fuel-based life cycle module is designed following the framework of the NETL Unit Process Library and CO2U LCA Guidance Toolkit. The module is then incorporated into IECM v13.0-beta. The process-based LCA is applied to estimate the GHG emissions of coal and biomass supply, coal- and coal-biomass co-firing power plant operation, as well as CO2 pipeline transport and geographical sequestration. An uncertainty analysis is conducted to quantify the variability and uncertainty associated with the LCA using the Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) method. Fleet-level Assessment. This study evaluates the technical and economic feasibility of selected coal-fired EGUs, examines the role of tax credits in retrofit viability, and assesses the competitiveness of retrofitted units against other low-carbon options. Unit screening identifies EGUs for the study, focusing on new, efficient baseload units with air pollution controls. The power plant databases are then established to organize unit-specific information on performance and operating conditions from the relevant public databases. Biomass for co-firing retrofits is selected based on home and neighboring county availability, ensuring sustained operation with at least a 5% co-firing level. The CO2 storage site is determined by state-level storage potential, with ArcGIS Pro and NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model used to identify the optimal balance between the nearest transport distances and affordable storage costs. The latest IECM v13.0-beta is then employed to configure and evaluate the eligible EGUs with or without the deployment of deep CCS and biomass co-firing. A supply curve is established to illustrate the cumulative installed capacity suitable for retrofits at different cost levels. A sensitivity analysis on tax credits for carbon sequestration is performed. Finally, a unit-level cost comparison is conducted among retrofitted plants, renewable power with battery storage, and abated fossil fuels with DAC. Expected Results. This study evaluates the technical, economic, and environmental metrics of each EGU across an array of CO2 capture rates and biomass co-firing level scenarios. Unit-level comparisons will identify critical factors influencing technical performance. The supply curves with and without tax incentives will provide insights into the impact of tax credits on biomass co-firing and CCS deployment. The cost comparisons with renewables and DAC-retrofit will assess the competitiveness of the retrofitted units. Life cycle emissions from each unit will be assessed to identify the scenarios under which net-zero emissions can be achieved. These analyses are expected to determine the total coal-fired capacity suitable for serving as a low-carbon energy source with or without tax incentives. The study results are novel in identifying optimal unit-specific strategies for producing carbon-neutral power, whether through retrofitting EGUs with deep CCS, biomass co-firing, DAC, or installing renewable power with battery. The findings will provide insight into nationwide efforts to ensure reliable, affordable, and low-carbon electricity. It also will inform investment decisions and policies in the deployment of deep carbon capture and negative emission technologies for a net-zero energy future.

Biomass Co-firing↗

Towards cost-competitive middle distillate fuels from ethanol within a market-flexible C2 platform-based biorefinery concept

Ethanol to middle distillates (ETMD) is a promising pathway to produce sustainable liquid fuels to decarbonize the hard-to-electrify transportation sectors due to (1) the abundant sugar/starch and lignocellulosic biomass, (2) the existing deployment scale of fuel ethanol production (similar to 29 billion gallons per year globally), and (3) emerging opportunities in C2+ alcohol synthesis from CO2. Here we report a conceptual market-responsive biorefinery centered around a new ETMD pathway based on one-step ethanol to butene-rich olefins (ETO) over a Cu-Zn-Y/Beta catalyst. Specifically, this ethanol conversion pathway comprises one-step ETO, oligomerization, and hydrotreating. This ETO is distinct from that in the conventional ethanol-to-jet process which is based on two-step ethanol to ethylene and ethylene oligomerization to butenes. Butene-rich olefins can be shifted to butadiene-rich products by simply changing the reaction atmosphere from hydrogen to inert gas over the same ETO catalyst. Leveraging the experimental results, baseline techno-economic analysis (TEA) and sensitivity analysis indicate that the ethanol conversion cost is $0.60 per gallon gasoline equivalent (GGE), with opportunities for further cost reduction via improving the liquid hydrocarbon yield and space velocities, and process optimization on balancing dewatering of ethanol feed prior to the ETO step. The minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of liquid hydrocarbons derived from corn starch ethanol with butadiene as coproduct is $1.64 per GGE, in the range that is cost competitive with petroleum kerosene-type jet fuel. Projected MFSP for cellulosic ethanol (corn stover) derived hydrocarbons is below $3.00 per GGE and co-production of butadiene further reduces the MFSP to $1.70 per GGE. The Well-to-Wake life-cycle analysis indicates that 85% greenhouse gas emission reduction can be achieved when using corn stover compared to petroleum reference and the associated carbon credits will provide significant economic incentives to favor the cellulosic ethanol-derived hydrocarbon fuels. This study demonstrates a low-cost pathway to middle distillate fuels leveraging existing ethanol infrastructure, where catalysis innovation drives the reduction of process complexity and flexible coproduction of a value-added chemical product.

Zhang, Junyan↗

Quarterly Technical Progress Report Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS™) Front End Engineering Design

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document summarizes the status of Cooperative Agreement DE-FE0031844, “Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS™) Front-End Engineering Design,” during the reporting period of January 1 through March 31, 2020. The objective of this project is to develop accurate installed costs by conducting a Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) of PZAS™ at Golden Spread Electric Cooperative’s (GSEC) Mustang Station located in Denver City, TX. Complementary benefits include positioning the technology for a commercial project with the 45Q tax credits, qualifying PZAS™ for use on a Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Cogen facility, and to provide cost detail to optimize PZAS™ and help guide R&D of second-generation solvent CO2 capture technologies. Results from the FEED will be used to evaluate the economic feasibility of the process at Mustang Station. This project is funded by the U.S. DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory under the aforementioned Cooperative Agreement. Exxon, Total, Chevron, UOP-Honeywell, and the University of Texas (UT) are project co-funders. AECOM and Trimeric are project team members; UT is the prime contractor. Summary of Progress Cooperative Agreement DE-FE0031844 was established in October 2019. The current reporting period, January 1 through March 31, 2020, is the second technical progress reporting period for the project. Several milestones were accomplished during this reporting period, including: • Kickoff Meeting with DOE on February 3, 2020. • Kickoff Meeting with GSEC on March 30, 2020. (Note: Due to Covid-19 travel restrictions and shelter-in-place guidelines, the kickoff meeting was conducted remotely via videoconferencing. See attached notes from that telecon.) • Updated Project Management Plan March 2020, submitted with this quarterly report Other activities during the quarter included progress on contracting and other legal agreements (e.g., non-disclosure agreements), internal kickoff meetings at both AECOM and Trimeric, and development of a Technical Implementation Plan (TIP). The TIP will help the team to make critical, early process decisions and, ultimately, to develop a project and process design basis. Note that all agreements between project team participants are complete as of this submittal, except the vendor agreement with Kiewit (steam cycle modeling). Plans for Next Reporting Period Activities during the next reporting period (April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020) include: the completion of the Project Design Basis and progress towards the Process Design Basis/Process Design Package (PDP). The Project Design Basis is due as a deliverable and milestone during the next reporting period.

Rochelle, Gary T.↗

Optimizing Renewable Ammonia Production for a Sustainable Fertilizer Supply Chain Transition

Local renewable ammonia production using electrolytic hydrogen is an emerging approach to alleviate emissions attributed to synthetic nitrogen fertilizer production while also insulating against fluctuations in fertilizer prices and mitigating transportation costs and emissions. However, replacing ammonia currently produced using fossil fuels will not be immediate. To this end, we develop a supply chain transition model, which first optimizes the design and hourly operation of new renewable ammonia facilities to minimize production costs and then optimizes the annual installation timing, production scale, and location of these new renewable facilities along with ammonia transportation to meet county resolution demands. The objective is to augment and eventually replace conventional ammonia market imports in an economically competitive manner. We performed a case study for Minnesota's ammonia supply chain and found that a full transition to in-state renewable production by 2032 is optimal. This is incentivized by the U.S. federal government's clean hydrogen production credits. This transition results in 99 % reduction in carbon intensity along with stable supply costs below $475 per metric tonne. New renewable production facilities are an order of magnitude smaller than existing conventional plants. They use both wind and solar resources and operate dynamically to minimize expensive battery and hydrogen storage capacities.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage in Hydrogen Production: A Combined Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Assessment

This paper presents a coupled techno-economic and life cycle assessment of “blue” hydrogen to be produced at a hydrogen facility through steam methane reforming (SMR) equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Blue hydrogen was modeled in ChemCAD, while an integrated asset model represented the carbon capture and storage chain. An unabated carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) configuration release 11.99 kgCO 2 -eq/ kgH 2 . Capturing ≥95% of the CO 2 stream lowers the carbon footprint to 6.59 kgCO 2 -eq/kgH2 but raises the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) from $\$$1.82/kgH 2 (no CO 2 capture) to $\$$3.22/kgH 2 ; the U.S. 45Q tax credit reduces it to $\$$2.59/kgH 2 . Incorporating CCS reduces the levelized net present value from $\$$0.87/kgH 2 to $\$$0.74/kgH 2 , owing to additional capture, transport, and storage costs. Supplying SMR with low-carbon electricity, especially nuclear, wind, or hydro, delivers the lowest carbon footprint relative to geothermal or grid mixes. Sensitivity analysis identifies that hydrogen sales price, internal rate of return, and CCS cost as the strongest economic levers, while electricity demand dominates residual lifecycle emissions. The results underscore a clear trade-off; substantial CO 2 reductions are achievable, but only with higher production costs, making supportive policy instruments, access to clean power, and robust hydrogen markets essential for large-scale deployment of blue hydrogen.

carbon capture↗

Carbon-Negative Biofuel Production

Achievement of the 1.5 °C limit for global temperature increase relies on the large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. In this article, we explore two CDR technologies: soil carbon sequestration (SCS), and carbon capture and storage (CCS) integrated with cellulosic biofuel production. These CDR technologies are applied as part of decentralized biorefinery systems processing corn stover and unfertilized switchgrass grown in riparian zones in the Midwestern United States. Cover crops grown on corn-producing lands are chosen from the SCS approach, and biogenic CO 2 in biorefineries is captured, transported by pipeline, and injected into saline aquifers. The decentralized biorefinery system using SCS, CCS, or both can produce carbon-negative cellulosic biofuels (≤-22.2 gCO 2 MJ –1 ). Meanwhile, biofuel selling prices increase by 15–45% due to CDR costs. Economic incentives (e.g., cover crop incentives and/or a CO 2 tax credit) can mitigate price increases caused by CDR technologies. Lastly, a combination of different CDR technologies in decentralized biorefinery systems is the most efficient method for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, and its total GHG mitigation potential in the Midwest is 0.16 GtCO 2 year –1 .

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Cost and Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Implications of Integrating Biogas Upgrading and Carbon Capture Technologies in Cellulosic Biorefineries

We discuss gaseous streams in biorefineries that have been undervalued and underutilized. In cellulosic biorefineries, coproduced biogas is assumed to be combusted alongside lignin to generate process heat and electricity. Biogas can instead be upgraded to compressed biomethane and used as a transportation fuel. Capturing CO 2 -rich streams generated in biorefineries can also contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation goals. We explore the economic and life-cycle GHG impacts of biogas upgrading and CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) at ionic liquid-based cellulosic ethanol biorefineries using biomass sorghum. Without policy incentives, biorefineries with biogas upgrading systems can achieve a comparable minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) and reduced GHG footprint ($1.38/liter gasoline equivalent (LGE) and 12.9 gCO 2e /MJ) relative to facilities that combust biogas onsite ($1.34/LGE and 24.3 gCO 2e /MJ). Incorporating renewable identification number (RIN) values advantages facilities that upgrade biogas relative to other options (MESP of $0.72/LGE). Incorporating CCS increases the MESP but dramatically decreases the GHG footprint (-21.3 gCO 2e /MJ for partial, -110.7 gCO 2e /MJ for full CCS). The addition of CCS also decreases the cost of carbon mitigation to as low as $52-$78/t CO 2 , depending on the assumed fuel selling price, and is the lowest-cost option if both RIN and California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits are incorporated.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

How to design a zero-emissions vehicle mandate? Simulating impacts on sales, GHG emissions and cost-effectiveness using the AUtomaker-Consumer Model (AUM)

We report although numerous studies investigate the impacts of policy on zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) sales, few address the impacts of a ZEV sales mandate and its particular design features. We use the AUtomaker-consumer Model (AUM) to simulate varying designs of a ZEV mandate in Canada's light-duty vehicle sector, requiring 30% ZEV sales by 2030. Design features include: different penalties for non-compliance, different allocations of credits per ZEV type, and the allowance of banking credits across years. For each policy design, we consider impacts on ZEV adoption, GHG emissions, consumer surplus, automaker profits, and overall policy cost-effectiveness. Results demonstrate trade-offs among the policy designs. Generally, ZEV mandate designs that are more effective at increasing ZEV adoption and decreasing GHG emissions also induce larger reductions in consumer surplus and automaker profits. To achieve the ZEV sales goal, simulations show that a higher non-compliance penalty (CDN$ 10k per credit) is needed. ZEV adoption and GHG reductions are also improved by a “One credit per ZEV” scheme, rather than a “California-style” scheme that gives multiple credits per battery-electric vehicle. Further, allowing automakers to bank credits softens the policy impact on profit and increases automaker compliance in initial years. Across these different design combinations, we find that the most cost-effective design ($CDN/tonne mitigated, including consumer surplus and automaker profits impacts) utilizes a $10k non-compliance penalty and “One credit per ZEV” system that allows banking. Our analysis demonstrates the importance of various ZEV mandate design features, and the complex trade-offs involved among various policy goals.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Multicriterion benefit evaluation methodology for safety enhancements in nuclear power plants and application for FLEX strategies

Here we propose a multicriterion benefit evaluation (MCBE) methodology for evaluating costs and benefits of implementing safety enhancements in nuclear power plants. The MCBE methodology establishes a comprehensive evaluation scope using multiple evaluation criteria (including public risk, occupational risk, plant revenue, and plant cost) and multiple contexts (including plant normal operations, incidents, and accidents). The MCBE methodology formulates a benefit or cost element as the product of a monetary consequence and its occurrence-likelihood change. The MCBE methodology also incorporates a decision maker’ preferences toward occurrence likelihood and monetary consequence into cost and benefit estimations through a modified usage of cumulative prospect theory. This paper applies the MCBE methodology to the implementation of diverse and flexible coping strategy (FLEX) in a generic nuclear power plant as an illustrative example. The FLEX benefits are evaluated through three types of influence paths: plant safety enhancement, risk-informed activities, and potential additional credit of FLEX in supporting plant operation and maintenance-efficiency improvement. The benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) of FLEX implementation is calculated. Sensitivity analyses are conducted to examine the impacts of modeling assumptions and input parameter values on the BCR.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

W-SMART Phase-I Pathway Analysis: Case Study - City of Boston, MA

The purpose of this study is to synthesize stakeholder and research learnings to date by exercising PNNL’s Waste - Sustainability Monitoring of Alternative Reuse Options over Time (W-SMART) sustainability protocol for the Greater Boston region. This report serves as a foundation for future discussion and project work to characterize the costs, risks, impacts, tradeoffs, and highest uses for major waste streams. This analysis differs from previous work by 1) incorporating results of a newly completed detailed resource assessment for the Greater Boston area; (2) providing a head-to-head pathway comparison without any policy supports (e.g., carbon or energy credits); and (3) focusing on locally relevant critical waste streams and reuse strategies, by assessing the cost-effectiveness of two complimentary pathways, including (a) expanded incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW) at existing treatment sites to produce baseload electricity, and (b) the conversion of blended municipal wastewater solids (i.e., sludge) and non-residential food waste to produce liquid transportation biofuels at a proposed hydrothermal liquefaction facility in Quincy, MA. The performance of each pathway is also compared to assumed business-as-usual waste management practices as a baseline.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Expanding the horizon of bio-naphtha beyond gasoline blend: property characterization and conversion opportunity assessment through technoeconomic and life-cycle analyses

Bio-naphtha, a common by-product of biorefineries, is expected to experience substantial growth in supply due to increasing demands for renewable diesel and synthetic aviation fuel (SAF). However, demand for bio-naphtha itself as a gasoline blendstock is limited because of the electrification of light-duty vehicles. This work investigated valorization opportunities for bio-naphtha from catalytic fast pyrolysis, hydrothermal liquefaction, Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, and hydrotreated esters and fatty acids pathways. These opportunities include producing polymer-grade olefin via steam cracking, SAF via steam cracking followed by olefin oligomerization, and renewable aromatics benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTX) and hydrogen via catalytic reforming. Process models were developed in Aspen Plus V14 and Aspen HYSYS V14 to calculate the mass and energy balances for each conversion step. Technoeconomic assessment and life-cycle analysis were conducted to evaluate the minimum fuel/product selling price, conversion cost, and life-cycle CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emission reduction. Technoeconomic assessment results suggest a minimum fuel/product selling price as low as $1.9/kg of olefins, $6.30/gal of gasoline-equivalent SAF, and $1.2/kg of BTX without any incentives. For all pathways, these prices are dominated by bio-naphtha feedstock costs, which account for at least 76% of the total cost. Compared with petroleum baselines, bio-naphtha-derived SAF, olefins, and BTX can achieve significant CO2e emission reductions from the use of renewable carbon resources. The results of life-cycle analysis and subsequent technoeconomic assessment, incorporating carbon credits, indicate the economic viability of using bio-naphtha for polymer-grade olefin and BTX production, with product costs comparable to market prices.

Xu, Shuang↗

Assessment of Technoeconomic Opportunities in Automation for Nuclear Microreactors

Achieving full decarbonization of all economic sectors remains a challenge, especially in niche markets. For example, remote communities and industrial or mining activities detached from the main electric grid heavily rely on fossil fuels, similar to urban and industrial microgrids with combined heat and power needs. A combination of renewables and energy storage is often not suitable due to cost, reliability, intermittency, and large storage requirements. Small nuclear reactors with a flexible purpose could serve these applications. Microreactors (MR) are a class of reactors that are compact, factory manufactured, transportable, and self-regulating. Typically, they generate much less power than their large reactor counterparts. The main advantages of microreactors include the versatile nature of the energy produced, the reliability of supply, and freedom from having to transport and store large quantities of fuels on-site, coupled with the absence of dependence on an electrical grid. A strong business case is needed to move from the microreactor prototype to the commercialization phase. In fact, fossil fuels are still relatively inexpensive, and in the near term, carbon credits will be available to virtually compensate for emissions. For microreactors, one of the main costs in operation and maintenance (O&M) is their staffing levels. In this study, we investigate how to optimize the number (and thus the cost) of workers, moving from a traditional, fully manned, on-site personnel approach to an unmanned, remote personnel approach. We examine four different staffing models that can be implemented as the technology matures and evolves. We estimate the staffing needs of each model and build a business case to justify the substitution of on-site personnel with adequate technologies. To do so, we propose a cost model to quantify potential cost reductions from automating O&M activities. The model accounts for both the reduction in cost derived from the reduced number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees and the increase in cost derived from the need to buy new control hardware as needed. Applying the cost model that we created to different scenarios, an on-site O&M cost reduction exceeding 80% can be expected. Additionally, we found that it is more impactful to focus on automating routine O&M tasks rather than attempting to automate transient management (shutdowns, restarts, monitoring condition deviations). In fact, transients typically account for less than 1% of the total FTE time spent on the reactors.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Evaluating Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law on the U.S. Power System

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, commonly referred to as the 'Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL),' collectively represent the largest commitment of the U.S. Federal Government to invest in the modernization and decarbonization of the U.S. energy system. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that total support for the broad range of climate and clean energy programs, tax credits, and other incentives authorized through the two laws will exceed $430 billion from 2022 through 2031 (CRS 2022; CBO 2021, 2022). While the climate and clean energy provisions are numerous and have the potential to impact all aspects of the U.S. energy system from fuel and electricity production to final consumption in industry, transportation, and buildings, the provisions relevant to the electricity sector - in particular the suite of tax credits for clean generation, storage, and carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) capture and storage - are expected to be some of the most consequential in terms of emissions reduction and clean energy deployment (Larsen et al. 2022; Jenkins, Mayfield, et al. 2022; Mahajan et al. 2022; Zhao et al. 2022). In this report, we detail the methods and results of a study estimating the potential impacts of key provisions of IRA and BIL on the contiguous U.S. power sector from present day through 2030. The analysis employs an advanced power system planning model, the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS), to evaluate how major provisions from both laws impact investment in and operation of utility-scale generation, storage, and transmission, and, in turn, how those changes impact power system costs, emissions, and climate and health damages. While not exhaustive in capturing every provision, the analysis estimates the possible scale of power-sector impacts that could result from the modeled provisions in IRA and BIL. The study is structured around two scenarios to evaluate the potential impacts of both laws on the power sector: 1) No New Policy: A counter-factual scenario that reflects all Federal and state policies enacted as of September 2022, with exception to IRA and BIL, and assumes load growth consistent with the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2022 (AEO22) Reference case (EIA 2022a); 2) IRA-BIL: A scenario reflecting all Federal and state policies enacted as of September 2022, including key IRA and BIL provisions, most notably the investment and production tax credits for zero-carbon emitting electricity generation and storage (ITC and PTC), the tax credit for CO 2 capture and storage (45Q), and the tax credit for existing nuclear plants (described further in Section 2.3). To account for the impacts of IRA and BIL on electrification, assumes increased load growth consistent with a scaled version of the Medium Electrification scenario from the Electrification Futures Study (Mai et al. 2018). These scenarios are simulated across seven sets of assumptions with varying projected future electricity market conditions, including technology costs and performance, natural gas prices, and the degree of availability, feasibility, and cost of development of renewable resources, electricity transmission, and CO 2 pipeline, injection, and storage infrastructure. In addition, we simulate two sensitivities on the 'policy' treatment in which we vary key assumptions pertaining to the realized value of the clean electricity ITC and PTC: 1) the cost of monetization of tax credits, and 2) the level of bonus crediting realized by project developers. We demonstrate that IRA and BIL have the collective potential to drive substantial growth in clean electricity by 2030, while reducing costs for consumers, mitigating climate change, and decreasing the human health impacts of power sector emissions. However, we also demonstrate that if expected cost improvements of clean technologies are not realized and/or constraints on deployment driven by factors such as supply-chain challenges, regulatory hurdles, and the social acceptability of energy infrastructure development limit the rate of clean energy and associated infrastructure deployment (such as transmission), then the share of clean generation achieved and the associated emissions benefits realized may be substantively reduced.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Evaluating CO 2 mitigation strategies in SAF biorefineries: Techno-economic and life cycle analysis

The aviation sector requires scalable decarbonization strategies, and lignocellulosic sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) represents a promising pathway. This study comparatively evaluates the techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (LCA) of three CO 2 management strategies integrated within a U.S.-based gasification–Fischer–Tropsch SAF biorefinery: (i) catalytic hydrogenation of captured CO 2 to methanol, (ii) geological CO 2 sequestration, and (iii) mineralization to sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO 3 ). Techno-economic analysis indicates that methanol synthesis requires approximately 26% higher capital investment and 33% higher operating costs than mineralization. Although methanol co-production generates the highest gross revenue, NaHCO 3 production reduces the SAF minimum selling price by approximately 38% relative to both methanol synthesis and geological sequestration pathways, reflecting a more balanced cost allocation through mineral co-product valorization. Geological sequestration lowers operating costs by nearly 50% compared with methanol synthesis but remains highly dependent on carbon credit mechanisms. LCA reveals substantial divergence in climate performance. Relative to methanol synthesis, sequestration improves net greenhouse gas performance by approximately 163%, transitioning the system from net-positive to net-negative emissions. Mineralization further enhances carbon mitigation, achieving roughly 85% greater carbon reduction than sequestration and over sixfold improvement relative to methanol synthesis within the defined system boundary. Sensitivity analysis identified hydrogen price, co-product market value, and process emissions as dominant drivers. Under baseline assumptions, CO 2 mineralization is found to offer the most balanced pathway.

Carbon capture and storage↗