Skip to main content

Economic Analysis Between Diesel and SOFC Electricity via Fusion-Biomass Hybrid Model

Journal of Fusion Energy volume 37, pages 333–345 (2018)Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 31 October 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

The fusion-biomass hybrid model system, which takes waste biomass from municipal and agricultural areas as well as forests as feedstock, produces either diesel through the Fischer–Tropsch (FT) reaction or electricity by the solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC). This system produces synthesis gas by endothermic pyrolytic gasification using high temperature fusion heat. A temperature of over 700 °C of exterior thermal heat from the fusion reactors with a duel cooled lithium lead blanket and its technical extension bring about biomass gasification to produce maximum amounts of chemical energy and synthetic gas, from feedstock. First, synthetic gas that contains hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO) can be converted into artificial diesel (–CH2–), which is regarded as “carbon–neutral”. The other is to generate electricity by putting synthetic gas into SOFC at various scales, not only at the plant scale but also at the residential scale. This paper aims to conduct an economic analysis of the fusion-biomass hybrid model by comparing diesel and SOFC electricity under the assumption of the investment of a biomass plant with an FT reaction facility and one with SOFC. A sensitivity analysis is performed applying diesel price, electricity price, SOFC efficiency, diesel subsidy, and fusion heat cost. These results can help in targeting which products are economically justified in the circumstances of variable environmental policies under different policies and economic situations, which would have a significant impact on commercial fusion designing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Change history

  • 31 October 2020

    In Figure, the in/outlet temperature changes between the nuclear fusion reactor and the gasifier should refer to Takeda et al. We further thank Dr. Takeda for fruitful discussions.

Abbreviations

B:

Diesel (kg)

Bp :

Diesel price ($/kg)

Bs :

Diesel subsidy ($/kg)

D:

Depreciation rate

Ep :

Electricity price ($/MWh)

Fc:

Feedstock cost

G:

Synthetic gas (kg)

Ge :

Energy value of synthetic gas (MJ)

GI:

Gross income

n:

Lifetime of system

NFc :

Fusion heat cost ($/MWh)

NIAF:

Net income after tax

O&M:

Operation and maintenance ($)

Oh :

Annual operating hours (h)

SD:

System dynamics

Seffi :

SOFC efficiency (%)

SOFC:

Solid oxide fuel cell

T:

Tax rate (%)

TCI:

Total capital investment ($)

i :

Interest (discount) rate (%)

t :

Operating year (year)

μ :

Conversion ratio of MJ to MWh

References

  1. EIA, International Energy Outlook 2017 (U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. B. Bigot, Progress in ITER construction, manufacturing and R&D, in IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Kyoto (2016)

  3. K. Tokimatsu, J. Fujino, S. Konishi, Y. Ogawa, K. Yamaji, Role of nuclear fusion in future energy systems and the environment under future uncertainties. Energy Policy 31, 775–797 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. I. Cook, D. Maisonnier, N. Taylor, D. Ward, P. Sardain, L. Pace, L. Giancarli, S. Hermsmeyer, P. Norajitra, R. Forrest, European fusion power plant sutdies. Fusion Sci. Technol. 47, 384–392 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. H. Kobori, R. Kasada, R. Hiwatari, S. Konishi, Improvement of system code importing evaluation of Life Cycle Analysis of tokamak fusion power reactors. Fusion Eng. Des. 109–111, 760–763 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. S. Entler, J. Horacek, T. Dlouhy, V. Dostal, Approximation of the conomy of fusion energy. Energy 152, 489–497 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2018 with Projections to 2050 (Energy Information Administration, Washington, 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Hori, Nuclear carbonization and gasification of biomass for effective removal of atmospheric CO2. Prog. Nucl. Energy 53, 1022–1026 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S. Konishi, M. Ichinose, K. Ibano, Y. Yamamoto, Fusion-biomass hybrid concept and its implication in fusion development, in 23rd IAEA Fusion Energy Conference (2010)

  10. S. Takeda, Environmental impact of nuclear fusion biomass gasification plant, in 29th Symposium on Fusion Technology (2016)

  11. J. O’Brien, M. McKellar, E. Harvego, C. Stoots, High-temperature electrolysis for large-scale hydrogen and syngas production from nuclear energy—summary of system simulation and economic analyses. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35, 4808–4819 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. C.W. Forsberg, Meeting U.S. liquid transport fuel needs with a nuclear hydrogen biomass system. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34, 4227–4236 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. A. Demirbaş, Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion processing for fuels and chemicals. Energy Convers. Manag. 42(11), 1357–1378 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. F. Safari, A. Tavasoli, A. Ataei, J.-K. Choi, Hydrogen and syngas production from gasification of lignocellulosic biomass in supercritical water media. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 4(2), 121–125 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. X.L. Yan, R. Hino, Nuclear Hydrogen Production; Handbook (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. A.R. Mohamed, M. Mohammadi, G.N. Darzi, Preparation of carbon molecular sieve from lignocellulosic biomass: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 159–1599 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. M.A. Yahya, Z. Al-Qodah, C. Zanariah Ngah, Agricultural bio-waste materials as potential sustainable precursors used for activated carbon production: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 46, 218–235 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. D. Kim, K. Noborio, T. Hasegawa, Y. Yamamoto, S. Konishi, Development of LiPb-Sic high temperature blanket, in Zero-Carbon Energy Kyoto 2009. Green Energy and Technology, Tokyo (Springer, 2010), pp. 113–119

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. K. Ibano, H. Utoh, K. Tobita, Y. Yamamoto, S. Konishi, Design studies of innovatively small fusion reactor based on biomass-fusion hybrid concept: GNOME. Fusion Eng. Des. 86, 2779–2782 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. S. Konishi, M. Enodea, M. Nakamichi, T. Hoshino, A. Ying, S. Sharafat, S. Smolentsev, Functional materials for breeding blankets-status and developments. Nucl. Fusion 57, 092014 (2017)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. A. Raffray, L. El-Guebally, S. Malang, X. Wang, L. Bromberg, T. Ihli, B. Merrill, L. Waganer, ARIES-CS team, Engineering design and analysis of the ARIES-CS power plant. Fusion Sci. Technol. 54, 725–764 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. E.D. Larson, H. Jin, F.E. Celik, Large-scale gasification-based coproduction of fuels and electricity from switchgrass. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 3(2), 174–194 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. European Commission, Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives (European Commission-Directorate General Environment, 2003)

  24. J. Sadhukhan, Y. Zhao, M. Leach, N.P. Brandon, N. Shah, Energy integration and analysis of solid oxide fuel cell based microcombined heat and power systems and other renewable systems using biomass waste derived syngas. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49(22), 11506–11516 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. T. Dey, D. Singdeo, A. Pophale, M. Bose, P.C. Ghosh, SOFC power generation system by bio-gasification. Energy Procedia 54, 748–755 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. M.J. Tijmense, A.P. Faaij, C.N. Hamelinck, M.R. van Hardevel, Exploration of the possibilities for production fo Fischer Tropsch liquids and power via biomass gasification. Biomass Bioenergy 23(2), 129–152 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. P. Edwards, V. Kuznetsov, W. Bavid, N. Brandon, Hydrogen and fuel cells: towards a sustainable energy future. Energy Policy 36(12), 4356–4362 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. S. Giddey, S. Badwal, A. Kulkarni, C. Munnings, A comprehensive review of direct carbon fuel cell technology. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 38(3), 360–399 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. A. Weber, E. Ivers-Tiffee, Materials and concepts for solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) in stationary and mobile applications. J. Powere Sources 127(1–2), 273–283 (2004)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. X. Zhang, S. Chan, G. Li, H. Ho, J. Li, Z. Feng, A review of integration strategies for solid oxide fuel cells. J. Power Sources 195, 685–702 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. M. Irshad, K. Siraj, R. Raza, A. Ali, P. Tiwari, B. Zhu, A. Rafique, A. Ali, M.K. Ullah, A. Usman, A brief description of high temperature solid oxide fuel cell’s operation, materials, design, fabrication technologies and performance. Appl. Sci. 6(3), 75 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Global Subsidies Initiative, Addendum to Biofuels—At What Cost?; A Review of Costs and Benefits of EU (The International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2013)

  33. M. Wolf, Biofuels: a tale of special interests and subsidies, Financial Times, 31 October 2007. https://www.ft.com/content/40a71f96-8702-11dc-a3ff-0000779fd2ac. Accessed 8 Aug 2017

  34. G.S. Initiative, BIOFUELS—AT WHAT COST?; Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel in Selected OECD Countries (The International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2007)

  35. USDA, Indonesia Biofuels Annual 2016 (US Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, 2016)

  36. H. Wu, G. Colson, C. Escalante, M. Wetzstein, An optimal U.S. biodiesel fuel subsidy. Energy Policy 48, 601–610 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. K. Tokimatsu, Y. Asaoka, S. Konishi, J. Fujino, Y. Ogawa, K. Okano, S. Nishio, T. Yoshida, R. Hiwatarai, K. Yamaji, Studies of breakeven prices and electricity supply potentials of nuclear fusion by a long-term world energy and environment. Nucl. Fusion 42, 1289–1298 (2002)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. G. Haarlemmer, G. Boissonnet, J. Imbach, P.-A. Setier, E. Peduzzi, Second generation BtL type biofuels—a production cost analysis. Energ Envrion Sci. 5, 8445 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. R. Scataglini, A. Mayyas, M. Wei, S.H. Chan, T. Lipman, D. Gosselin, A. D'Alessio, H. Breunig, W.G. Colella, B.D. James, A Total Cost of Ownership Model for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells in Combined Heat and Power and Power-Only Applications (Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2015)

  40. Argonne National Laboratory, Cas Clean-Up for Fuel Cell Application Workshop (U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne, 2014)

  41. E.B. Roberts, Managerial Applications of System Dynamics (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1981)

    Google Scholar 

  42. EIA, Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2017 (U.S. Energy Information, Washington, 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  43. R.H. Bezdek, R.M. Wendling, The return on investment of the clean coal technology program in the USA. Energy Policy 54, 104–112 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. F. Spertino, P.D. Leo, V. Cocina, Economic analysis of investment in the rooftop photovoltaic systems: a long-term research in the two main markets. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28, 531–540 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. L. Punda, T. Capuder, H. Pandzic, M. Delimar, Integration of renewable energy sources in southeast Europe: a review of incentive mechanisms and feasibility of investments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 71, 77–88 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. K. Ibano, R. Kasada, Y. Yamamoto, S. Konishi, Neutronics and pumping power analyses on the Tokamak reactor for the fusion-biomass hybrid concept. Fusion Eng. Des. 88, 2881–2884 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto, 611-0011, Japan

    Hoseok Nam

  2. Institute of Material Research, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8577, Japan

    Ryuta Kasada

  3. Institute of Advanced Energy, Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto, 611-0011, Japan

    Satoshi Konishi

Authors
  1. Hoseok Nam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryuta Kasada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Satoshi Konishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hoseok Nam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nam, H., Kasada, R. & Konishi, S. Economic Analysis Between Diesel and SOFC Electricity via Fusion-Biomass Hybrid Model. J Fusion Energ 37, 333–345 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10894-018-0192-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10894-018-0192-z

Keywords

  • Nuclear fusion
  • Biomass gasification
  • Economic analysis
  • Diesel
  • Hydrogen
  • System dynamics