A hierarchical heuristic method to analysis of economics and safety of a pressurized water reactor in a power market
محورهای موضوعی : Simulation Based OptimizationGhafour Ahmad Khanbeigi 1 , Naser Mansour sharifloo 2 , Gholamreza Jahanfarnia 3 , Mohamad Kazem Sheikh-el-Eslami 4 , Kaveh Karimi 5
1 - Department of Nuclear Engineering, Science and Researches Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Department of Nuclear Engineering, Science and Researches Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 - Department of Nuclear Engineering, Science and Researches Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
4 - Power system Lab, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
5 - East Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
کلید واژه: Optimization, economics, safety, Electricity market, Payback period,
چکیده مقاله :
In this paper, according to the discussion of improving the safety of nuclear power plants (NPPs) according to reports and findings of Fukushima accident, a model for the economic analysis of a NPP with a higher level of safety in an electricity power market is provided. Therefore, a solution to determine the balance between safety and economy to deal with station black-out (SBO) accident in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) nuclear power plant is presented. A supply function equilibrium (SFE) that takes into account carbon tax in the power market is used to calculate the profit of each power generation firm. A hierarchical innovative approach is used to make decisions about improving the safety of NPP. In this method, breakeven point (BEP) is used as the decision criterion to compare the safety improvement costs and profit of NPP in the power market. This method is used to add an emergency diesel generator (EDG) and a mobile heat exchanger to a NPP that examines the impact of investment costs and profits. The result shows that with the addition of an EDG to the NPP, the BEP of investment costs and net profit of the NPP is one month later. Finally, it can be suggested to the investor of the NPP to add EDG to improve safety, so that the implementation of this proposal leads to a slight increase in payback period, but greatly reduces core damage frequency (CDF) of NPP reactor in SBO accident.
[1] The Fukushima Daiichi Accident. (2015). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY. Retrieved from https://www.iaea.org/publications/10962/the-fukushima-daiichi-accident.
[2] ENSREG, E. U. (2011). Stress Test. Specifications, Annex I to the Declaration of ENSREG. Retrieved from http://www.ensreg.eu/sites/default/files/EU Stress tests specifications_1.pdf.
[3] Update of the Slovenian post-Fukushima action plan, Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration, URSJV/RP-119/2021, Slovenia, December 2021.
[4] Florida Power & Light/St. Lucie Site Revised FLEX Final Integrated Plan, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, L-2016- 057, 10 CFR2.202, 2016.
[5] Nomoto, T. (2015). Electrical systems design applications on Japanese PWR plants in light of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident. Retrieved from https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/46/066/46066617.pdf.
[6] Al Shehhi AS, Chang SH, Kim SH, Kang HG (2013). Analysis of economics and safety to cope with station blackout in PWR. Ann Nucl Energy 59:63–71.
[7] Teegala, S. K., & Singal, S. K. (2015). Economic analysis of power transmission lines using interval mathematics. Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology, 10(4), 1471–1479.
[8] Hulio, Z. H., & Jiang, W. (2018). Assessment of the apparent performance characterization along with levelized cost of energy of wind power plants considering real data. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 36(6), 1708–1728.
[9] Kharitonov, V. V, & Kosterin, N. N. (2017). Criteria of return on investment in nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy and Technology, 3(3), 176–182.
[10] Yucekaya, A. (2013). Bidding of price taker power generators in the deregulated Turkish power market. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 22, 506–514. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.038
[11] Ruiz, C., Conejo, A. J., Fuller, J. D., Gabriel, S. A., & Hobbs, B. F. (2014). A tutorial review of complementarity models for decision-making in energy markets. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 2(1–2), 91–120.
[12] Buygi, M. O., Zareipour, H., & Rosehart, W. D. (2012). Impacts of large-scale integration of intermittent resources on electricity markets: A supply function equilibrium approach. IEEE Systems Journal, 6(2), 220–232.
[13] Hobbs, B. E. (2001). Linear complementarity models of Nash-Cournot competition in bilateral and POOLCO power markets. IEEE Transactions on power systems, 16(2), 194–202.
[14] Hobbs, B. F., Metzler, C. B., & Pang, J.-S. (2000). Strategic gaming analysis for electric power systems: An MPEC approach. IEEE transactionson power systems, 15(2), 638–645.
[15] Yaghooti, A., Buygi, M. O., & Zareipour, H. (2014). Impacts of ramp rate limits on oligopolistic opportunities in electricity markets. IEEE Systems Journal, 10(1), 127–135.
[16] Gharib, M., Yaghooti, A., & Buygi, M. O. (2011). Efficiency upgrade in PWRs. Energy and Power Engineering, 3(04), 533.
[17] Fang, Zh. (2021). Economic Factors Analysis and Optimization Strategy of Third-generation Nuclear Power. International Conference on New Energy Technology and Industrial Development (NETID). Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202129202024
[18] Yang, X., Cai, B., Xue, Y (2022). Review, Optimization of Nuclear Power Development: A Cyber-Physical-Social System in Energy Perspective. JOURNAL OF MODERN POWER SYSTEMS AND CLEAN ENERGY, VOL. 10, NO. 3 (547-561). IEEE. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9673695.
[19] El Khatib, S. T. (2011). Oligopolistic Electricity Markets Under Cap-and-trade and Carbon Tax. McGill University Library.
[20] Tominaga, J. (2017). Steam turbine cycles and cycle design optimization: Advanced ultra-supercritical thermal power plants and nuclear power plants. In Advances in Steam Turbines for Modern Power Plants (pp. 41–56). Elsevier.
[21] AESO. (2016). Hourly Alberta Internal Load Data. Retrieved March 10, 2017, from https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/Hourly-load-data-for- 2016.xlsx.
[22] Ahmad Khanbeigi, G., Jahanfarnia, G., Sharifloo, N.M. et al. Trade-off Between Cost and Safety To Cope with Station Blackout in A PWR in A Deregulated Electricity Market. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 15, 2045–2056 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42835-020-00488-5.
[23] NEA, I. E. A. and. (1998). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: Update 1998. OECD Paris, France. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/1998/768-projected-costs.pdf.
[24] International Energy Agency, & N. E. A. (2005). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2005 Update. OECD/IEA. Retrieved fromhttps://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2005/5968-projected-costs.pdf.
[25] IEA, N. E. A. (2010). OECD. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2010 Edition. ISBN 978-92-64-08430-8, OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2 rue Andr-Pascal, 75775 Paris . Retrieved from https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2010/6819-projected-costs.pdf.
