Comparison of cost efficiencies of nuclear power and renewable energy generation in mitigating CO2 emissions

The objective of this study is to compare the cost efficiencies of nuclear power and renewable energy generation in reducing CO2 emissions. To achieve this objective, we estimate the relationship between CO2 emissions and both nuclear power and renewable energy generation in 16 major nuclear power-generating countries, and compare the costs of both energy generation methods in reducing CO2 emissions by the same amount. The results show that, to reduce CO2 emissions by 1%, nuclear power and renewable energy generation should be increased by 2.907% and 4.902%, respectively. This implies that if the current amount of electricity generation is one megawatt-hour, the cost of mitigating CO2 emissions by 1% is $3.044 for nuclear power generation and $7.097 for renewable energy generation. That is, the total generation costs are approximately $1.70 billion for the nuclear power and $3.97 billion for renewable energy to mitigate 1% of CO2 emissions at the average amount of electricity generation of 0.56 billion MWh in 2014 in the sample countries. Hence, we can conclude that nuclear power generation is more cost-efficient than is renewable energy generation in mitigating CO2 emissions, even with the external costs of accidents and health impact risks associated with nuclear power generation.

Keywords: CO2 emissions; Cost efficiency; External costs; Generation costs; Nuclear power; Renewable energy.

Similar articles

Kerem A. Kerem A. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2022 Mar;72(3):294-307. doi: 10.1080/10962247.2022.2028690. Epub 2022 Feb 7. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2022. PMID: 35030055

Bulut U. Bulut U. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2017 Jun;24(18):15416-15426. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-9175-2. Epub 2017 May 16. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2017. PMID: 28508336

Whittington HW. Whittington HW. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2002 Aug 15;360(1797):1653-68. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2002.1025. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2002. PMID: 12460490

Al-Shetwi AQ. Al-Shetwi AQ. Sci Total Environ. 2022 May 20;822:153645. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153645. Epub 2022 Feb 3. Sci Total Environ. 2022. PMID: 35124039 Review.

Newman J, Bonino CA, Trainham JA. Newman J, et al. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng. 2018 Jun 7;9:153-174. doi: 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060817-084300. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng. 2018. PMID: 29879382 Review.

Cited by

Luna-Romera JM, Carranza-García M, Arcos-Vargas Á, Riquelme-Santos JC. Luna-Romera JM, et al. Heliyon. 2024 Feb 8;10(3):e25838. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25838. eCollection 2024 Feb 15. Heliyon. 2024. PMID: 38371961 Free PMC article.

Mahmood H. Mahmood H. PeerJ. 2022 Jul 25;10:e13780. doi: 10.7717/peerj.13780. eCollection 2022. PeerJ. 2022. PMID: 35910772 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Apergis N, Payne JE (2009) CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy Policy 37:3282–3286 - DOI
    1. Apergis N, Payne JE (2010) A panel study of nuclear energy consumption and economic growth. Energy Econ 32:545–549 - DOI
    1. Baek J (2015) A panel cointegration analysis of CO2 emissions, nuclear energy and income in major nuclear generating countries. Appl Energy 145:133–138 - DOI
    1. Baek J, Kim HS (2011) Trade liberalization, economic growth, energy consumption and the environment: time series evidence from G-20 economies. J East Asian Econ Integr 15:3–32
    1. Baek J, Kim HS (2013) Is economic growth good or bad for the environment? Empirical evidence from Korea. Energy Econ 36:744–749 - DOI