The economic and environmental assessment of alternative marine fuels and nuclear energy utilization on a floating power plant

Yuksel, O ORCID: 0000-0002-5728-5866, Konur, O ORCID: 0000-0002-2677-6048, Pamık, M ORCID: 0000-0003-3268-1368 and Bayraktar, M ORCID: 0000-0001-7252-4776 (2024) The economic and environmental assessment of alternative marine fuels and nuclear energy utilization on a floating power plant. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31 (37). pp. 49780-49799. ISSN 0944-1344

Preview

Text The economic and environmental assessment of alternative marine fuels and nuclear energy utilization on a floating power plant.pdf - Accepted Version Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

The paper aims to investigate the fuel and system options for a floating power plant (FPP) considering economic performance and the decarbonization goals of the International Maritime Organization. Various case studies have been assessed using a reference FPP, encompassing the instant and future retrofitting scenarios. The ready-to-use scenarios involve alternative fuel and organic Rankine cycle-based waste heat recovery system usage. Nuclear energy systems have been evaluated within the reference FPP since they are suitable candidates for achieving zero-carbon objectives and providing low-cost electricity. A simulation framework created in Python has calculated the fuel consumption regarding the power requirement and organized the approaches used in the study. An environmental model comparing the systems has been built to calculate upstream and operational emissions. The cost projection model for 2030 and 2050 has assessed the economic performance. Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity (TOPSIS) one of the multi-criteria decision-making approaches has ranked the systems considering the outcomes of economic and environmental models over the years. Findings demonstrate that the current fuel usage scenario of the FPP is not suitable both environmentally and economically. The other emissions can be near zero and greenhouse gases can be decreased by up to 15.95% using alternative fuels. Nuclear energy is a strong candidate to meet the 2050 targets, but its viability is largely based on economic performance.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Nuclear Energy; Power Plants; Alternative marine fuels; Floating power plant; Marine engineering; Nuclear energy; TOPSIS; Waste heat recovery system; Power Plants; Nuclear Energy; 41 Environmental Sciences; 40 Engineering; 4104 Environmental Management; 7 Affordable and Clean Energy; Power Plants; Nuclear Energy; 03 Chemical Sciences; 05 Environmental Sciences; 06 Biological Sciences; Environmental Sciences
Subjects:	T Technology > TC Hydraulic engineering. Ocean engineering T Technology > TK Electrical engineering. Electronics. Nuclear engineering
Divisions:	Engineering
Publisher:	Springer
Date of acceptance:	24 July 2024
Date of first compliant Open Access:	5 March 2026
Date Deposited:	05 Mar 2026 16:03
Last Modified:	05 Mar 2026 16:03
DOI or ID number:	10.1007/s11356-024-34532-y
URI:	https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/28190

View Item