energies

Review
Investigating the Potential of Nuclear Energy in Achieving a
Carbon-Free Energy Future
Jānis Krūmin, š * and Māris Kl, avin, š

Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Latvia, Rain, a Blvd. 19,
LV-1586 Riga, Latvia
* Correspondence: krumins.janis@lu.lv

Abstract: This scientific paper discusses the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to
mitigate the effects of climate change. The proposed strategy is to reach net-zero emissions by
transitioning to electric systems powered by low-carbon sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric
power, and nuclear energy. However, the paper also highlights the challenges of this transition,
including high costs and lack of infrastructure. The paper emphasizes the need for continued research
and investment in renewable energy technology and infrastructure to overcome these challenges
and achieve a sustainable energy system. Additionally, the use of nuclear energy raises concerns,
such as nuclear waste and proliferation, and should be considered with its benefits and drawbacks.
The study assesses the feasibility of nuclear energy development in Latvia, a country in Northern
Europe, and finds that Latvia is a suitable location for nuclear power facilities due to potential energy
independence, low-carbon energy production, reliability, and economic benefits. The study also
discusses methods of calculating electricity generation and consumption, such as measuring MWh
produced by power plants, and balancing supply and demand within the country. Furthermore, the
study assesses the safety of nuclear reactors, generated waste, and options for nuclear waste recycling.
The transition to a carbon-free energy system is ongoing and complex, requiring multiple strategies
to accelerate the transition. While the paper proposes that nuclear energy could be a practical means
of supporting and backing up electricity generated by renewables, it should be noted that there are
still challenges to be addressed. Some of the results presented in the paper are still based on studies,
and the post-treatment of waste needs to be further clarified.
Citation: Krūmin, š, J.; Kl, avin, š, M.
Investigating the Potential of Nuclear
Keywords: decarbonization; carbon-neutral energy; power generation; nuclear power; sustainable
Energy in Achieving a Carbon-Free
energy; small modular reactor
Energy Future. Energies 2023, 16, 3612.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en16093612

Academic Editors: Gangli Zhu,

Kegong Fang, Ying Yang, Shenghua
1. Introduction
Liu and Dan Gabriel Cacuci
The issue of climate change, characterized by the increase in global temperatures and
Received: 13 February 2023 associated impacts, requires a significant reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1].
Revised: 2 March 2023 One strategy to achieve this goal is to reach net-zero emissions and decrease dependence
Accepted: 21 April 2023 on fossil fuels [2]. This necessitates a shift in energy generation and consumption patterns.
Published: 22 April 2023 A widely recognized and practical solution to decrease GHG emissions and decrease
dependency on fossil fuels is the electrification of all energy-consuming sectors [3]. This
approach involves replacing fossil-fuel-based energy sources with electricity from low-
carbon sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power to power electricity generation,
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
transportation, heating, and industry. This approach also provides a range of benefits, such
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
as reducing air pollution, improving energy security, and creating new job opportunities in
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
the renewable energy sector. The electrification of all energy-consuming sectors presents a
conditions of the Creative Commons
practical and effective solution to reduce GHG emissions, decrease dependence on fossil
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// fuels, and create a more sustainable and resilient energy system. While challenges such as
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the intermittency of renewable energy sources and the need for infrastructure upgrades
4.0/). and investments may exist, the benefits of electrification and the transition to low-carbon

Energies 2023, 16, 3612. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16093612 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 3612 2 of 31

energy sources far outweigh the costs in terms of environmental, social, and economic
benefits [4–7]. Transitioning to electric systems can significantly reduce emissions and
improve energy efficiency, thereby slowing the pace of climate change. The electrification of
energy-consuming sectors is widely considered as a key solution in mitigating the effects of
climate change [8,9]. However, the transition to electric systems is not without challenges,
such as high costs, a lack of infrastructure and technology, and a lack of political will [3,10].
Additionally, the availability of low-carbon energy sources may not be consistent or reliable
in certain regions, making it challenging to rely solely on these sources for electrification.
Despite these challenges, it is crucial to continue working toward the electrification of
energy-consuming sectors, as it is an effective approach to addressing climate change.
Fossil fuels remain the primary source of electricity generation due to their abun-
dance, established infrastructure, and relatively low cost. However, the negative impact
of fossil fuels on the environment and human health is becoming increasingly apparent,
leading to a growing demand for phasing out their use and transitioning toward cleaner
and renewable sources of energy [11,12]. This shift is necessary to mitigate the effects
of climate change, which is caused by the accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmo-
sphere, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. The implementation of renewable
energy sources can significantly decrease GHG emissions and promote sustainable en-
ergy generation. It is essential to continue research and investment in renewable energy
technology and infrastructure, to overcome the challenges and achieve a sustainable
energy system.
The traditional method of electricity generation through fossil fuel power plants,
which relies on the combustion of coal or oil to generate heat, is a significant contributor
to GHG emissions and air pollution. Despite the growing awareness of the detrimental
effects of fossil fuels on the environment and human health, they continue to be the primary
source of energy worldwide, accounting for over 80% of global energy consumption [13–18].
This is due to a complex interplay of factors, such as the existing infrastructure, economic
considerations, and political factors that have hindered the transition from fossil fuels to
better energy sources. However, with the rapid advancements in clean and renewable
energy technologies, the future of energy generation is shifting toward cleaner, sustainable
sources. It is essential to continue the research and investment in these technologies, and
develop the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the transition to a low-carbon energy
system in order to mitigate the effects of climate change and improve air quality.
As technology advances and the need to reduce GHG emissions becomes increasingly
apparent, the share of renewable energy in global energy consumption is increasing [19,20].
Among renewable energy sources, wind energy is currently the largest contributor, but solar
energy is rapidly gaining ground [21–24]. With the decreasing cost of solar and wind energy,
as well as the development of more efficient technology, their share in the energy mix is
expected to increase in the future. This shift toward cleaner and sustainable energy sources
is crucial for addressing the challenges of climate change and meeting the energy needs
of a growing population. In 2019, in the United States (US), renewable energy surpassed
nuclear energy in terms of its share of electricity generation for the first time in history,
highlighting the growing potential of renewable resources to replace fossil fuels as the
primary source of electricity generation [25]. However, it is important to note that while the
use of renewable energy sources has been increasing in the recent years, they alone may not
be sufficient to entirely replace fossil fuels with current technology solutions [26,27]. The
power output of renewable energy sources is dependent on weather conditions, making it
difficult to rely solely on these sources to meet the energy demands of the entire population.
Achieving a fully decarbonized energy sector will require a combination of different clean
energy sources and technologies, such as energy storage solutions, advanced grid systems,
and carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 3 of 31

Electricity is a fundamental and essential aspect of modern life and ensuring a constant
and reliable supply of electricity is one of the most significant challenges facing the world
today. The increasing global energy demand, the need to reduce GHG emissions, and the
impacts of climate change make it increasingly important to develop clean and sustainable
energy sources that can provide a reliable source of electricity. The transition to cleaner
energy sources and technologies will be a complex and challenging process, requiring a
combination of technical, economic, and policy solutions to achieve the goal of a sustainable
energy future. To overcome the environmental and energy crisis caused by the extensive
use of fossil fuels, and to establish a sustainable and clean energy system, it is vital to
set in motion a new energy revolution focusing on electricity generated from renewable
resources [28,29]. Renewable energy sources are increasingly being adopted, but the lack of
advanced energy storage technology is a significant hurdle to overcome. Without sufficient
energy storage, the full potential of renewable energy sources cannot be realized. Therefore,
it is necessary to invest in advanced energy storage technologies, such as battery storage
systems, to enable the integration of renewable energy into the power grid and ensure a
reliable and consistent supply of electricity [30,31]. The development of advanced energy
storage technologies must be a priority in order to achieve a sustainable and carbon-free
energy system. Additionally, it is important to consider all viable options for providing
a reliable and consistent supply of electricity, including nuclear energy, but with caution,
considering the risks associated with it, such as safety concerns and the disposal of nuclear
waste. The transition to a sustainable and clean energy future requires a holistic approach,
considering all possible options and their associated risks to ensure a reliable, sustainable,
and clean energy future.
The threat of climate change has reached a critical level and continues to escalate
at an alarming rate. Mitigating the catastrophic effects of climate change requires im-
mediate action, particularly in the energy sector, which is a major contributor to GHG
emissions [32–34]. A holistic approach that considers the assorted options available and
their associated risks is necessary to achieve a sustainable, clean, and reliable energy fu-
ture. Phasing out the use of fossil fuels is a crucial step in combatting the climate crisis.
Nevertheless, reaching net-zero emissions alone is insufficient, as the effects of climate
change, such as increased flooding, coastal erosion, droughts, and wildfires, are already
manifesting and will continue to affect the climate for years to come [35,36]. It is essential
to take immediate action to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and transition to cleaner
and sustainable sources of energy, to minimize the impact of climate change and ensure a
safe and livable future for all. While further climate change is inevitable, phasing out fossil
fuels can buy humanity more time to adapt to the new conditions [37–39].
Nuclear energy has the potential to be a valuable addition to the energy mix, as it
can effectively be combined with renewable energy sources to provide stable and uninter-
rupted electricity without producing significant GHG emissions [40–42]. Nuclear energy
can play an important role in the transition from fossil fuels to emission-free and clean
energy. Furthermore, it is not necessary to build large nuclear power plants, as newer,
smaller, and safer nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), are already
available and continue to improve [43,44]. SMRs can provide up to 300 MWh of carbon-free
energy practically anywhere in the world, without the need for long-distance transmission
of electricity. This approach allows for a quick and smooth transition to clean energy,
while ensuring reliable and sustainable energy supply. In addition to providing a reliable
source of carbon-free energy, SMRs have the potential to play a key role in addressing the
climate crisis by powering technologies for carbon capture directly from the atmosphere.
It is important to note that addressing the climate crisis requires not only the cessation
of excessive emissions, but also the reduction of existing emissions in the atmosphere.
Therefore, SMRs, combined with carbon capture technology, can be a powerful tool for
achieving a low-carbon energy future and mitigating the effects of climate change [45,46].
However, it is important to take into account that SMRs are a relatively new technology,
and more research is needed to determine the feasibility of the technology and its potential
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 4 of 31

challenges. For example, a recent study by Stanford and the University of British Columbia
suggests that SMRs would generate more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear
power plants [47]. However, these findings have been disputed by other researchers, who
argue that there are no additional major challenges to the management of SMR nuclear
waste compared to traditional reactors [48]. Therefore, more pilot projects are considered
necessary to determine the feasibility of the technology and its potential challenges. At
the same time, it is generally accepted that nuclear power, including SMRs and other
technologies, such as light water reactors (LWRs), boiling water reactors (BWRs), and
high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs), will continue to play an important role
in the future energy mix, alongside other low-carbon energy sources, such as renewables,
energy storage, and carbon capture technologies [49–51]. LWRs are a common type of
pressurized water reactor (PWR) that use ordinary water as both a coolant and a moderator.
LWRs are the most widely used type of nuclear power plant in the world, accounting for
approximately 60% of global nuclear power capacity. The fuel used in LWRs is typically
enriched uranium dioxide, which is fabricated into fuel rods that are loaded into the reactor
core. Water is used to cool the reactor core and transfer the heat to a steam generator, where
it is used to produce electricity. LWRs offer several advantages, including high thermal
efficiency, low emissions, and relatively low operating costs. However, they also present
certain challenges, such as the need for specialized fuel handling and storage facilities, and
the risk of nuclear accidents and radiation leaks. Overall, LWRs have played a significant
role in meeting the world’s energy needs and will likely continue to be an important part
of the energy mix in the future [49]. BWRs are a type of nuclear power plant that use
enriched uranium fuel to heat water, producing steam that drives a turbine to generate
electricity. Unlike PWRs, which use a separate water source to cool the reactor core, BWRs
use the same water that is heated to create steam. This can make BWRs simpler and more
efficient than PWRs. However, BWRs also present certain challenges, such as the need
for specialized fuel handling and storage facilities, and the risk of nuclear accidents and
radiation leaks. Despite these challenges, BWRs continue to play an important role in
meeting the world’s energy needs, particularly in countries such as Japan and the US,
which have a large number of BWRs in operation. Recent advances in BWR technology,
such as the use of passive safety systems, have also made them safer and more reliable [50].
HTGRs are a type of nuclear power plant that use helium gas as a coolant and graphite as a
moderator. HTGRs can operate at much higher temperatures than other types of reactors,
which makes them more efficient and potentially more versatile. They also have a relatively
low risk of nuclear accidents and radiation leaks due to their inherent safety features, such
as a ceramic-coated fuel that can withstand high temperatures. HTGRs can be designed for
either electricity generation or industrial heat applications, such as hydrogen production.
However, HTGRs also present certain challenges, such as the need for specialized fuel
handling and storage facilities, and the risk of graphite oxidation. Despite these challenges,
HTGRs have the potential to play an important role in meeting the world’s energy needs,
particularly in countries seeking to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and decarbonize
their energy systems [49,51].
The use of nuclear energy as a tool for decarbonizing the electricity grid and ending de-
pendence on fossil fuels is a topic of ongoing debate within the scientific community [52–54].
While opinions on the role of nuclear energy in the future energy mix may vary, it is reason-
able to suggest that it should play a significant role in achieving a clean and sustainable
energy system. Simultaneously, it is crucial to address the issue of final disposal of nuclear
waste if nuclear energy is to be included in any future energy mix. Critics of nuclear energy
often fail to acknowledge the potential benefits of nuclear energy in terms of emission
reduction and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that
the risks associated with nuclear energy can be mitigated through the use of advanced
technologies such as carbon capture and desalination equipment. Nuclear energy can
not only provide emission-free energy, but also capture fossil emissions that have already
entered the atmosphere, making it a valuable measure in the fight against climate change.
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 5 of 31

The objective of this paper is to assess the future perspectives of nuclear energy in the
clean energy system, with a focus on safer, cheaper, and more compact options, particularly
for small countries with limited funds to decarbonize their electricity grid or provide a
local source of electricity. One such option is the use of SMRs, which are smaller, cheaper,
and safer than traditional nuclear reactors. However, further studies and pilot projects are
needed to assess the potential of nuclear energy as a tool for decarbonizing the electricity
grid and ending dependence on fossil fuels, and determine the best options for different
countries and regions.
This study provides a thorough examination of the advantages and limitations of both
renewable and nuclear energy sources, with a focus on SMRs as a potential solution to the
challenges faced by renewable energy. The analysis includes a detailed evaluation of the
issues related to nuclear waste management and a comparison of the capabilities of SMRs
in terms of providing reliable and sustainable energy. Furthermore, the study presents
recommendations for the integration of nuclear energy, with technologies such as carbon
capture and desalination, to mitigate the effects of climate change. The main goal of this
paper is to offer a scientifically based, objective analysis of the potential role of nuclear
energy in the transition toward a clean and sustainable energy system.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Feasibility Assessment of Nuclear Energy Development
For the purpose of assessing feasibility, the authors selected Latvia as a viable location
for the implementation of nuclear energy in the future. Latvia is a country in Northern
Europe, located on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea. It is bordered by Estonia to the north,
Russia to the east, Belarus to the southeast, and Lithuania to the south. The study has
determined that Latvia is a suitable location for the establishment of nuclear power facilities
for electricity generation in the future. This is due to a variety of factors, including the
potential for energy independence, low-carbon energy production, reliability, and economic
benefits [55–57]. Additionally, Latvia has a relatively small population and a relatively
low need for electricity, which means that the energy generated by nuclear power plants
could potentially be exported to other countries [58–61]. Nevertheless, it is important to
weigh the potential advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power, as well as consider
factors such as safety, waste management, and public acceptance, before deciding about
the deployment of nuclear power plants in Latvia.
The study highlights several factors that make Latvia a viable location for the imple-
mentation of nuclear power plants:
• Energy independence: Latvia currently relies heavily on imported fossil fuels to meet
its energy needs [62,63]. Building nuclear power plants in Latvia would reduce its
dependence on foreign energy sources and increase its energy security;
• Low-carbon energy: nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source, which means that
it emits less GHGs compared to fossil fuels [64]. This can help Latvia reduce its carbon
footprint and meet its climate change goals;
• Reliability: nuclear power plants can provide a steady, reliable source of electricity to
meet Latvia’s energy needs, even during times of high demand [65];
• Economic benefits: nuclear power plants can create jobs and stimulate economic
growth in the areas where they are built [66];
• Latvia has a relatively small population, and the need for electricity is not very high,
so the energy generated by nuclear power plants could be used to export to other
countries [59–62].
It is important to note that nuclear power has both advantages and disadvantages,
and it is crucial to weigh them before deciding. Safety, waste management, and public
acceptance are also critical factors to consider when it comes to nuclear power.
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 6 of 31

2.2. Calculating Electricity Generation

The calculation of electricity generation for a country can be achieved through various
methodologies, but a common practice is to determine the total amount of electricity
produced by all power plants within the country over a specific temporal interval, such as
an annual period [67]. This can be accomplished by measuring the number of megawatt
hours (MWh) produced by each power plant and subsequently summing these values
to obtain the total for the country. Another approach to calculating electricity generation
for a country is by utilizing the balance of electricity supply and demand within the
country [68]. In this method, electricity generation for a country can be calculated as the
sum of production from all power plants, minus the electricity lost in transmission and
distribution, plus imports, and minus exports (Equation (1)). This can be mathematically
represented as [69]:
Electricity Generation = Production from all power plants − Transmission and distribution losses +
(1)
Imports − Exports
This methodology considers all the electricity that enters and leaves the country,
providing a net generation value. It is important to note that the availability of data and
methods of data collection may vary by country.

2.3. Calculating Electricity Consumption

The quantification of electricity consumption in a country can be performed through
multiple techniques [70]. A prevalent method is to determine the aggregate consumption
of electricity by all end-users within the country over a defined time frame, such as an
annual duration [71]. This can be achieved by measuring the consumption of electricity in
MWh for each consumer category, such as residential, commercial, and industrial sectors,
and subsequently summing these values to attain the overall consumption for the country.
This approach enables an accurate representation of the electricity consumption patterns
in a country and provides a comprehensive overview of the energy consumption trends.
Another method for determining electricity consumption in a country is through the
analysis of the balance between electricity supply and demand. This approach calculates
electricity consumption as the net result of electricity generated by domestic power plants,
imports, exports, and transmission and distribution losses [72]. By considering all inflows
and outflows of electricity, this method provides a comprehensive representation of the
country’s overall consumption. This approach enables a more accurate understanding
of the country’s energy consumption patterns and provides insight into the balance of
domestic energy production and import dependency. This can be represented as the
Equation (2):
Electricity Consumption = Generation from all power plants + Imports − Exports − Transmission and
(2)
distribution losses
This method accounts for all the electricity that enters and exits the country, resulting
in a net generation value. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that data availability and
collection methods may vary across countries. This highlights the need for standardized
and accurate data collection procedures to ensure the comparability and reliability of
electricity generation and consumption calculations.

2.4. Calculating Electricity Demand

Calculating an increase in electricity demand can be done through various techniques,
but a common method is to compare the current consumption to that of a previous period,
such as the same month or quarter of the previous year [73]. This can be done by measuring
the number of MWh consumed during the current period, and then subtracting the number
of MWh consumed during the previous period. This will give the increase in demand.
Mathematically, it can be represented as (Equation (3)):
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 7 of 31

Increase in Demand = Current period’s electricity consumption − Previous period’s electricity consumption (3)
Another approach to calculate the increase in demand is by utilizing forecasting
models [74–76]. These models can predict future demand based on historical data, weather
patterns, and other relevant factors. The forecasting models use statistical and mathematical
techniques to provide an estimate of future demand. It is important to note that the demand
increase calculation is dependent on the data availability, accuracy and the data collection
method used. The results of the calculation should be interpreted in the context of the
underlying data and the method used for data collection.

2.5. Calculating Emissions from Electricity Generation

There are several ways to calculate emissions from electricity generation, but a com-
mon method is to use the emissions factor, which is a measure of the amount of GHG
emissions produced per unit of energy generated [77,78]. This can be done by multiplying
the emissions factor of the specific fuel source used by the total amount of energy generated
from that fuel source. For example, if a power plant burns coal to generate electricity, the
emissions factor for coal would be used to calculate the total emissions produced by the
power plant. The calculation would be (Equation (4)):

Emissions (in CO2 e) = Total electricity generation (MWh) × Emissions factor (kg CO2 e/MWh) (4)
Another approach is to use data from the power plants regarding their fuel con-
sumption and emissions, and then use that data to estimate the emissions from electricity
generation. This can be done by using a tool such as the International Energy Agency’s
CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion database, which provides detailed data on emissions
from fuel combustion by country, fuel type, and sector. It is also important to note that
emissions from electricity generation can also be calculated for other greenhouse gases
besides CO2 , such as methane, nitrous oxide and others, depending on the specific fuel
source and power plant [79].

2.6. Selecting the Optimal Evaluation Method for Power Plant Energy/Fuel Source
There are several methods available to determine the optimal energy/fuel source
for a power plant, with the most widely used in practice being cost, efficiency, emissions,
land usage, lifetime, waste generation, and reliability [80,81]. Selecting the appropriate
evaluation method to assess the value of invested funds is crucial. The primary goal is to
establish assessment methods that consider both positive and negative attributes in order
to determine the most suitable type of power plant. In other words, the benefits should
outweigh the drawbacks. For example, when evaluating the efficiency of power plants,
calculating the amount of electricity generated relative to the fuel consumed would be an
appropriate method. On the other hand, when evaluating waste production, evaluating the
characteristics of the fuel used and its recycling potential may be a more suitable assessment
option [82]. It is important to consider the specific context, goals and criteria of the energy
planning or evaluation process to select the most appropriate methods.

2.7. Assessing Nuclear Energy as a Replacement for Fossil Fuels

To accurately determine the amount of nuclear energy necessary to replace fossil
fuels in a country, a comprehensive analysis must be conducted. This includes evaluating
the current electricity generation from fossil fuels and determining the total electricity
generation for the country. Additionally, the capacity factor of proposed nuclear power
plants must be analyzed [83–85]. The capacity factor, a metric that represents the actual
output of a power plant over a period of time compared to its maximum potential output
if it were to operate at full capacity during that same period, plays a crucial role in the
feasibility of nuclear energy as a replacement for fossil fuels. Factors such as technology,
efficiency, and operation and maintenance of the power plant impact the capacity factor
 Energies
Energies 16,16,
2023,
2023, 3612PEER REVIEW
x FOR 8 of831
of 31

and must be considered during the analysis. The nuclear energy needed can be calculated
Nuclear energy needed using
= (Total electricity
Equation (5):generation from fossil fuels/Capacity factor of nuclear power
(5)
plants) ×Total electricity generation for the country
Nuclear energy needed = (Total electricity generation from fossil fuels/Capacity factor of nuclear power
(5)
It plants)
is important
× Totaltoelectricity
note thatgeneration
this calculation
for theassumes
country that the capacity factor of the
nuclear power plants will be the same as that of the fossil fuel power plants they are re-
It is important to note that this calculation assumes that the capacity factor of the
placing and that the total electricity generation for the country will remain constant. In
nuclear power plants will be the same as that of the fossil fuel power plants they are
reality, the total electricity generation and the capacity factor may vary over time due to
replacing and that the total electricity generation for the country will remain constant. In
factors such as weather, economic conditions, and government policies. Furthermore, it is
reality, the total electricity generation and the capacity factor may vary over time due to
essential to consider safety, waste management, and public acceptance of nuclear power
factors such as weather, economic conditions, and government policies. Furthermore, it is
in the country before deciding to replace fossil energy with nuclear energy.
essential to consider safety, waste management, and public acceptance of nuclear power in
the country before deciding to replace fossil energy with nuclear energy.
3. Results
3.1.3.Current
ResultsTrends and Future Scenarios of Electricity Generation and Consumption
3.1.The
Current Trends
current andprimary
global Future Scenarios
energy mixof Electricity
is heavilyGeneration
reliant onand Consumption
fossil fuels, with 84% of
the world’s primaryglobal
The current energy being sourced
primary energy mixfromisfossil fuels
heavily suchon
reliant as fossil
oil (33%),
fuels,coal
with (27%),
84% of
andthe world’s
natural gasprimary energyIn
(24%) [86–89]. being sourced
contrast, onlyfrom
16%fossil
of thefuels such
world’s as oil is
energy (33%),
sourced coalfrom
(27%),
and natural sources,
low-emission gas (24%)including
[86–89]. Inhydroelectric
contrast, onlypower
16% of(7%),
the world’s
renewable energy is sourced
energy from
sources
low-emission sources, including hydroelectric power (7%), renewable
(5%), and nuclear energy (4%) [89]. The increasing demand for electricity (Figure 1) driven energy sources (5%),
byand nuclear energy
technological (4%) [89].and
advancements Thepopulation
increasing growth
demandcannot
for electricity
currently(Figure
be met1)solely
drivenbyby
technological
renewable energyadvancements
sources, resulting and inpopulation
the continuedgrowth cannot
reliance on currently
fossil fuelsbeformet solely by
electricity
renewable
generation energy
and sources, resulting
a corresponding increasein the continued
in GHG reliance
emissions. on fossil fuels
Abandoning for electricity
nuclear energy
generation and a corresponding increase in GHG emissions. Abandoning
as a source of power would exacerbate this issue, as the missing energy would have to nuclear energy
be
as a source of power would exacerbate this issue, as the missing
generated using fossil resources. This would not only undermine efforts to decarbonizeenergy would have to be
thegenerated usingbut
energy sector, fossil
alsoresources. This would
have a detrimental not only
impact undermine
on global climateefforts
change to mitigation
decarbonize
efforts. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the continued use of nuclear energy as mitigation
the energy sector, but also have a detrimental impact on global climate change a viable
efforts.
option Therefore,
in the transitionit istocrucial to consider
a low-carbon energythesystem.
continued use of nuclear energy as a viable
option in the transition to a low-carbon energy system.

Figure 1. The net electricity consumption worldwide over the last decade (2011–2021), based on
Figure 1. The
Statistica net[90].
2023 electricity consumption worldwide over the last decade (2011–2021), based on
Statistica 2023 [90].
The histogram presented in Figure 1 illustrates the net electricity consumption of the
world
The over the past
histogram decade (2011–2021).
presented in Figure 1 illustrates theY-axis
The vertical represents
net electricity the net consumption
consumption of the
in terawatt hours (TWh), while the horizontal X-axis depicts the
world over the past decade (2011–2021). The vertical Y-axis represents thetime period
net from 2011 to
consump-
2021.
tion The datahours
in terawatt clearly demonstrate
(TWh), an exponential
while the growth
horizontal X-axis in net the
depicts electricity consumption,
time period from
increasing
2011 to 2021.from
The19,444
data TWh in demonstrate
clearly 2011 to 25,343an
TWh in 2021. Notably,
exponential growththe in data
net also indicate
electricity
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 9 of 31

a period of relative stability in net consumption in the years 2019 and 2020, which may
be attributed to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global industrial activity [91].
Overall, the worldwide net electricity consumption is showing a gradual upward trend,
and if this trend continues, it may result in an increase in fossil fuel emissions, as renewable
energy sources are not yet able to keep up with this consumption. One example of this
phenomenon can be observed in Lithuania, where the decommissioning of the Ignalina
Power Plant resulted in a reduction of carbon-free nuclear energy production and an
increased reliance on fossil fuels [92,93]. Despite the necessity of decommissioning the
outdated and dangerous Soviet-era nuclear reactor, the situation highlights the potential
benefits of investing in modern, state-of-the-art nuclear technology with advanced safety
systems [94]. Given the existing legislation and the availability of qualified personnel, the
primary challenge in this endeavor would be raising funds, given the negative perception
of nuclear power.
The latest data from AST (Figure 2) indicate that Latvia’s electricity consumption has
exhibited a steady upward trend in the recent years [95]. However, this trend experienced
a deviation in 2020 due to the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions, which resulted in
a decrease in electricity demand. Similarly, in 2022, the increase in electricity prices also
led to a drop in electricity demand. These data suggest that the overall trend of increasing
electricity consumption in Latvia is subject to fluctuations caused by external factors such as
pandemics and changes in electricity prices. The country has also been increasing its use of
renewable energy sources, such as wind and biomass, to generate electricity [96]. However,
Latvia still heavily relies on fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, to meet its energy needs.
As of 2021, the majority of Latvia’s electricity is generated by hydroelectric power plants,
followed by natural gas and coal-fired power plants [97]. Latvia heavily relies on the
imports of natural gas, oil, and coal to generate electricity. Latvia has committed to reduce
its GHG emissions and increase the share of renewable energy in its energy mix, as part
of its commitment to the Paris Agreement and the EU’s climate change targets [98]. This
would imply a decrease in the use of thermoelectric power plants in the future. Under the
Paris Agreement, countries are required to submit Nationally Determined Contributions
(NDCs) that outline their specific climate action plans and emission reduction targets. The
NDCs are reviewed and updated every five years to reflect the country’s progress towards
achieving its goals. The Paris Agreement also established a mechanism for supporting
developing countries in their efforts to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change,
including financial assistance, capacity building, and technology transfer to achieve its
NDCs. Latvia has implemented several policies and measures, including a carbon tax,
subsidies for renewable energy, energy-efficient building codes, and support for the use
of electric vehicles. The EU has been a key supporter of the Paris Agreement and has set
ambitious targets to reduce GHG emissions and increase the share of renewable energy in
its energy mix. The EU has committed to achieving net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 and
reducing emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to the levels in 1990. Additionally,
the EU aims to increase the share of renewable energy to at least 32% by 2030 and increase
energy efficiency by at least 32.5% by the same year [98].
The trend of electricity production and consumption in Latvia between 2015 and 2022
is illustrated in Figure 2. The data, presented in MWh, do not exhibit a clear trend of
increasing or decreasing consumption. This lack of trend is likely due to the relatively
short time frame, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and electricity price increases
on consumption patterns. Despite this, the overall consumption appears to be increasing.
Additionally, Latvia’s reliance on hydropower and fossil resources, which are subject
to significant fluctuations in availability and cost, results in significant fluctuations in
electricity production.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 31
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 10 of 31

Figure 2. Electricity production versus consumption in Latvia (2015–2022), based on AST 2023 [95].
Figure 2. Electricity production versus consumption in Latvia (2015–2022), based on AST 2023 [95].
Latvia’s electricity consumption is consistently increasing year-over-year and is pro-
The
jected to trend of electricity
continue to rise inproduction
the future and[99].consumption
This fact must inbe Latvia between
considered 2015considering
when and 2022
is future
illustrated
energyin Figure
scenarios. 2. The data, presented
Currently, Latvia does in MWh, do not enough
not produce exhibit aelectricity
clear trend of in-its
to meet
creasing
consumption needs and this gap is expected to widen in the future. The amount short
or decreasing consumption. This lack of trend is likely due to the relatively of elec-
time frame,
tricity and theinimpact
generated Latviaof the COVID-19
varies from year to pandemic and electricity
year, depending pricesuch
on factors increases on
as weather
consumption patterns. Despite this, the overall consumption appears
conditions and economic activity. According to data from the Latvian transmission system to be increasing. Ad-
ditionally,
operator Latvia’s
AST, thereliance on hydropower
total electricity generation and in fossil
Latviaresources,
in 2020 was which are subject 8.2
approximately to sig-
TWh.
nificant fluctuations
Electricity in Latvia in is
availability
primarilyand cost, results
provided in significant
by Latvenergo, fluctuations
which in electricity
is the largest electricity
production.
supplier in the country [95,97]. Latvenergo is a state-owned company and is responsible
forLatvia’s electricity
the generation, consumptionand
transmission, is consistently
distributionincreasing
of electricityyear-over-year and is pro-
in Latvia. Additionally,
jected to continue to rise in the future [99]. This fact must be considered
there are also several smaller private electricity suppliers operating in Latvia that provide when considering
future energy
electricity toscenarios.
customers. Currently, Latvia does
Some examples include not[100]:
produce enough electricity to meet its
consumption
• Elektrum: needs and this gap
a subsidiary is expected
of the internationalto widen
utility incompany,
the future. The which
EON, amountoperates
of elec- in
tricity generated in Latvia
several European countries; varies from year to year, depending on factors such as weather
conditions
• anda economic
Enefit: subsidiaryactivity. According
of the Estonian to data from
state-owned the Latvian
energy company,transmission system
Eesti Energia;
operator
• AST, the total electricity generation in Latvia in 2020 was
Vattenfall: a Swedish power company that operates in several European countries, approximately 8.2 TWh.
Electricity in Latvia
including is primarily provided by Latvenergo, which is the largest electricity
Latvia;
supplier
• in thegāze:
Baltijas country [95,97].natural
a Latvian Latvenergo
gas and is aelectricity
state-owned company and is responsible
supplier;
for• theNordea
generation, transmission, and distribution of
Elektrum: a subsidiary of the Nordea bank that provides electricity in Latvia. Additionally,
electricity in Latvia.
there are also several smaller private electricity suppliers operating in Latvia that provide
Hydroelectricity is the main source of electricity generation in Latvia. The Latvian
electricity to customers. Some examples include [100]:
transmission system operator AST reported that the total electricity generation from hydro-
• electric
Elektrum:
powera plants
subsidiary of the
in 2020 wasinternational
approximately utility company,
4.7 TWh EON, has
[95]. Latvia which operateslarge
a relatively in
several European countries;
number of rivers and lakes, which makes it well suited for hydroelectric power generation.
• TheEnefit:
biggesta subsidiary
hydroelectric of the Estonian
power state-owned
plants are located energy
on thecompany,
DaugavaEesti Energia;
River, and include
• theVattenfall: a SwedishPower
Riga Hydroelectric power company
Station, that operates
Plavinas Hydroelectric in several
Power European countries,
Station, and Kegums
including Latvia;
Hydroelectric Power Station (Table 1).
• Baltijas gāze: a Latvian natural gas and electricity supplier;
• Table
Nordea Elektrum:
1. Latvia’s largestahydroelectric
subsidiary of the Nordea
power plants onbank that provides
the Daugava electricity in Latvia.
River [97].
Hydroelectricity is the main source of electricity generation in Latvia. The Latvian
Name of the Power Station Total Capacity (in MW) Number of Generators Commissioned Date
transmission system operator AST reported that the total electricity generation from hy-
Riga Hydroelectric Power droelectric
Station 690 MW
power plants 4 4.7 TWh [95]. Latvia1977–1981
in 2020 was approximately has a relatively
large
Plavinas Hydroelectric Power number of rivers
Station 440and
MWlakes, which makes it well
3 suited for hydroelectric power gen-
1980–1982
eration.
Kegums Hydroelectric Power Station The biggest hydroelectric
400 MW power plants are
4 located on the Daugava River, and
1986–1987
include the Riga Hydroelectric Power Station, Plavinas Hydroelectric Power Station, and
Kegums Hydroelectric Power Station (Table 1).
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 11 of 31

Table 1 aims to give an overview of the hydroelectric power generation capacity in

Latvia and the technical aspects of the hydroelectric power plants. The capacity of these
power plants is a significant factor in understanding the power generation capacity of
Latvia. The commissioning date also allows for a better understanding of how these power
plants have been integrated into the national power grid.
In addition to conventional hydroelectric power, Latvia also generates a small amount
of electricity from run-of-river hydroelectric power plants, which are smaller and have
less environmental impact [97]. In addition to conventional sources, Latvia also generates
a small amount of electricity from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar
power (Table 2).

Table 2. Renewable energy sources in Latvia [97].

Energy Source Installed Capacity (MW) Target for 2030 (Share in Energy Mix)
Wind Power 480 MW 6%
Solar Power 20 MW 1%

Table 2 provides a summary of the installed capacity of wind and solar power in
Latvia. This table aims to give an overview of the current and future potential of wind and
solar power in Latvia. It shows the installed capacity of both wind and solar power in the
country, as well as the government’s target for the share of these renewable energy sources
in the national energy mix by 2030. It is important to note that these data are subject to
change and are based on current policies and plans; therefore, future developments could
change the actual figures.
The amount of solar energy generated in Latvia is relatively small compared to other
sources of electricity. According to data from Eurostat, the share of solar energy in the
total electricity generation in Latvia was around 0.5% in 2020 [101]. Latvia has a relatively
low solar potential compared to other European countries due to its northern location
and relatively short summer days. However, in the recent years, the Latvian government
has been promoting the development of solar energy. Several private companies and
organizations have begun to invest in solar energy projects in Latvia, and the number of
solar panels installed in the country has been increasing. However, the overall capacity of
solar energy is still relatively small, and the majority of electricity generated in Latvia is
still coming from conventional sources, such as hydroelectricity, and combined heat and
power plants.
The amount of wind energy generated in Latvia is also relatively small compared to
other sources of electricity. According to data from Eurostat, the share of wind energy
in the total electricity generation in Latvia was around 2.6% in 2020 [101]. Latvia has a
relatively low wind potential compared to other European countries due to its location in
the northeastern part of Europe, which is not as windy as the coastal areas and large parts
of the continent. However, the Latvian government has been promoting the development
of wind energy and has set a target to increase the share of renewable energy in the total
energy mix to 40% by 2030, which includes the use of wind energy [102]. Several private
companies have begun to invest in wind energy projects in Latvia, and the number of wind
turbines installed in the country has been increasing over the years.

3.2. Energy Production Costs

Electricity generation involves both fixed and variable costs (Table 3). Fixed costs
include capital expenses, such as the cost of constructing a power plant and the cost of
land [103]. These costs can vary depending on factors such as labor costs and regulatory
expenses, including permits and environmental approvals. Variable costs, also known as
operating costs, include expenses for fuel, labor, and maintenance [103]. These costs can
vary depending on the amount of electricity produced and the type of power plant used.
For example, fossil-fuel-powered plants have higher fuel costs, while renewable energy
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 12 of 31

sources have little to no fuel costs. Nuclear power plants have low fuel costs, but higher
labor and maintenance costs [104]. The cost to generate each unit of electricity, known as
the marginal cost, is influenced by these operating costs [103]. Table 3 provides a summary
of the estimated capital, fixed, variable, and operating costs for electricity generation for
different types of power plants. The data presented in this table are sourced from the
International Energy Agency (IEA) and are based on estimates for the year 2020 [105].

Table 3. Electricity generation costs by power plant type [105].

Power Plant Capital Costs Fixed Costs Variable Costs Operating Costs
Type (USD/MWh) (USD/MWh) (USD/MWh) (USD/MWh)
Coal 100–150 30–70 20–80 10–20
Natural Gas 50–80 20–50 15–30 5–10
Nuclear 150–200 50–100 30–50 10–20
Hydroelectric 50–80 20–50 10–30 5–10
Onshore Wind 40–80 10–30 10–20 5–10
Offshore Wind 80–120 20–40 10–20 5–10
Solar PV 50–100 10–20 10–20 5–10

Table 3 includes information on seven different types of power plants: coal, natural
gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, onshore wind, offshore wind, and solar PV. Each type of power
plant is represented by a row in the table, with columns displaying the estimated costs
for capital, fixed, variable, and operating costs in USD/MWh. This table aims to give an
overview of the approximate costs associated with different types of power plants and
allows for comparison between them. For example, it can be seen that the capital costs
for a coal-fired power plant are higher than those of a natural-gas-fired power plant, but
the variable costs for a coal-fired power plant are lower. Similarly, it can be observed
that the operating costs for hydroelectric power plants are lower than those for nuclear
power plants. On the other hand, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power,
are characterized by lower capital and operating costs than fossil fuel power plants. It
is important to note that these costs are based on estimates and can vary depending on
location and other factors. Additionally, these numbers are for reference and should be
used as a rough guide, as the actual costs can vary depending on the specific conditions of
each power plant and location.
SMRs can offer several benefits in terms of costs [43–45,57]. Since they are smaller
and less complex than traditional nuclear power plants, the costs associated with building
and installing SMRs can be lower. Additionally, the use of standardized designs and mass
production can also reduce costs. Furthermore, SMRs can be used in a wide range of
applications, including remote and off-grid locations, which can help diversify the energy
mix in these areas [43–46,57]. While SMRs could potentially reduce the costs associated with
nuclear power, this is not a guarantee, and more research and developments are needed to
determine the actual costs and benefits of these new technologies. Furthermore, the cost of
financing, insurance, and fuel supply, as well as the availability of skilled labor and the legal
framework, are also factors that could affect the overall costs of a nuclear power project. It
is important to note that SMRs are still in the research and development phase, and as a
result, it is difficult to provide a precise estimate of their levelized cost of energy (LCOE).
However, some studies and estimates have suggested that SMRs may have a lower LCOE
than traditional nuclear reactors due to their smaller size, modular design, and potential
for increased efficiency. For instance, a 2018 report by the IAEA indicated that the LCOE
for SMRs could range from USD 60 to 90 per MWh, depending on the specific design and
fuel cycle of the reactor. In contrast, larger traditional nuclear reactors typically have an
estimated LCOE ranging from USD 90 to 150 per MWh [106]. It is important to emphasize
that these estimates are based on a number of assumptions and are subject to change as SMR
technology continues to develop. Additionally, the LCOE for SMRs may vary depending
on several factors, such as the energy mix of the grid where the reactor is deployed, the
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 13 of 31

cost of fuel, and regulatory compliance expenses. While it is challenging to provide an

accurate LCOE estimate for SMRs at this stage, there is some evidence to suggest that these
reactors may have a lower LCOE than traditional nuclear reactors, given their smaller
size, modular design, and potential for increased efficiency [106]. Nonetheless, further
research and development is needed to better understand the cost and feasibility of SMRs
in practice. SMRs may be able to compete with renewables in certain applications, such as
providing baseload power to remote or off-grid communities. While renewables may have
a lower LCOE in some cases, they may also face challenges related to intermittency and
grid integration. SMRs, on the other hand, can provide reliable 24/7 power, and may be
more suitable for certain applications or locations.

3.3. Energy Decarbonization

Electricity decarbonization refers to the process of reducing the carbon emissions
associated with the generation of electricity [107]. This can be achieved through a variety
of means, including the increased use of renewable energy sources, the implementation of
CCS technology, and the increased energy efficiency of power generation and transmission.
One of the main strategies for achieving electricity decarbonization is the increased use
of renewable energy sources. These sources of energy do not produce carbon emissions
during operation, and can therefore help reduce the carbon intensity of the electricity grid.
Another strategy for achieving electricity decarbonization is the implementation of CCS
technology [108,109]. CCS technology captures CO2 emissions from power plants and other
industrial facilities, and stores them underground, effectively removing them from the at-
mosphere. Improving energy efficiency is also key for electricity decarbonization [110,111].
By reducing the energy consumption of buildings, industries, and the transportation sector,
the demand for electricity is reduced, and the amount of energy that needs to be produced
to meet that demand is therefore also reduced.
Many countries and international organizations have set ambitious targets for decar-
bonizing the electricity sector. For example, the EU has set a target to achieve a 32% share of
renewable energy in its final consumption by 2030 and reduce emissions by at least 40% by
2030 compared to the levels in 1990 [102]. It is important to note that decarbonization is a
complex and challenging process that requires a multifaceted approach and the cooperation
of various stakeholders, including governments, utilities, and industry. It also requires
significant investments in new technologies and infrastructure. Additionally, the imple-
mentation of policies and regulations to support the transition to a low-carbon electricity
system, such as carbon pricing, renewable energy targets, and energy efficiency standards,
will be crucial to achieve successful decarbonization. It is also worth mentioning that
decarbonization of the electricity sector alone is not enough to tackle the climate change, as
other sectors such as transportation, buildings, and industry, need to be decarbonized as
well. Furthermore, it is not only about reducing emissions, but also about removing the
already emitted CO2 from the atmosphere. Overall, though, electricity decarbonization is
a crucial step toward meeting global climate goals and addressing the impacts of climate
change. It involves a transition from fossil-based power generation to low-carbon and
renewable energy sources, as well as increasing energy efficiency, and the development
and deployment of new technologies, such as CCS.
Businesses globally have varying focuses when it comes to decarbonization efforts,
with some focusing on heating and cooling systems, and others on electricity genera-
tion [112,113]. This is due to the differing energy intensity of their operations, which
can range from non-intensive to intensive. Decarbonization of heating and cooling in
the industrial sector is a crucial step towards reducing GHG emissions. One of the main
strategies for achieving this is through the use of low-carbon and renewable energy sources
for heating and cooling [114]. This can include the use of geothermal heat pumps, solar
thermal systems, and biomass boilers. Another strategy is the implementation of energy
efficiency measures, such as insulation and efficient heating and cooling systems [115]. This
can help reduce the amount of energy required for heating and cooling, thereby reducing
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 14 of 31

carbon emissions. In terms of electricity decarbonization, it is also important to consider

the intensity of operation of a corporation. For example, some industrial processes are
more energy-intensive than others, and therefore may require more significant investments
in low-carbon and renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures. Additionally,
some companies may have more opportunities to implement renewable energy and energy
efficiency measures, depending on their location and access to resources. For example, a
company that operates in a region with high potential for solar or wind power may find it
easier to invest in these technologies than a company that operates in a region with less
favorable conditions. It is important to note that the decarbonization of heating and cooling
and electricity in the industrial sector is a complex and challenging process that requires a
multifaceted approach and the cooperation of various stakeholders, including governments,
utilities, and industry. It also requires significant investments in new technologies and
infrastructure. Additionally, the implementation of policies and regulations to support the
transition to a low-carbon system, such as carbon pricing, renewable energy targets, and
energy efficiency standards, will be crucial to achieving successful decarbonization.

3.4. Challenges and Opportunities in Energy Storage

The transition to renewable energy sources has been met with both challenges and
opportunities. One significant challenge is the high cost of energy storage devices, such
as batteries (Table 4) [116,117]. Despite a recent decrease in costs, the initial investment
required for these devices remains substantial for many corporations. In addition, the lack
of standardization in energy storage technology creates difficulties for electricity genera-
tion projects that expand over time, as certain storage systems may not meet the specific
requirements of the project and may need to be replaced. This lack of standardization also
contributes to challenges in regulatory policy, as new technologies and designs may not be
immediately recognized or accommodated by existing regulations. However, as energy
storage technologies continue to improve and become more efficient and economically
viable, they will play a crucial role in promoting flexible integration of renewable energy
sources and baseload nuclear energy. Nuclear energy, in particular, has the potential to
significantly contribute to a clean energy future and help combat climate change in conjunc-
tion with renewable energy sources. Therefore, more climate advocates should recognize
the importance of including nuclear energy in any comprehensive climate solution.

Table 4. Solar energy storage possibilities [117–119].

Technology Type Description Advantages Disadvantages

Rechargeable batteries High energy density, long High cost, requires careful
Lithium-ion
Chemical commonly used in consumer life cycle, and low management to prevent
batteries
electronics and electric vehicles self-discharge rate overheating and fire
Rechargeable batteries
Low cost, widely available, Low energy density, short
Lead-acid commonly used in automotive
Chemical and well-established life cycle, and requires
batteries and backup power
technology regular maintenance
applications
Rechargeable batteries that use Long life cycle, scalable and High cost, relatively new
Flow batteries Chemical liquid electrolytes to store modular design, and ability technology with limited
energy to handle deep discharge commercialization
Uses compressed air to store
energy, typically in Low cost, can be sited in a Requires specific geographic
Compressed air
Mechanical underground caverns or variety of locations, and has conditions and high capital
energy storage
repurposed natural gas storage a long lifespan costs
facilities
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 15 of 31

Table 4 aims to give an overview of the different technologies used for solar energy
storage and allows for comparison between them. For example, lithium-ion batteries have a
high energy density and a long life cycle, but they are relatively expensive; while lead-acid
batteries are low-cost, but have a low energy density and a short life cycle. It is important
to note that each technology has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the most
appropriate one will depend on the specific application and location.

3.5. Evaluating the Capability and Performance of a Proposed Power Plant

Energy planning, a process that encompasses decision-making related to energy
demand and supply infrastructure, should be inclusive of all stakeholders and consider
all possible options for energy supply and demand to align with the overall national goals
for sustainable development [120–122]. This includes not just environmental protection,
but also social and economic development, which are interconnected and overseen by
competent regulatory bodies. The process of energy planning starts with the identification
of a set of indicators that encompass all aspects of sustainable development. This is
followed by an evaluation of all current and future energy supply options that meet
demand within certain policy targets. The study of energy system analysis, considering a
country’s natural resource capacity, stage of infrastructure development, and sustainable
development objectives, may or may not conclude the idea that nuclear energy should be
included in the country’s future energy mix. If nuclear energy is deemed a viable option,
it may be beneficial to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the entire nuclear energy
system to raise awareness of the associated issues, support the development of a national
strategic plan for nuclear energy, and ensure that the proposed system meets sustainable
development criteria.
The capacity factor of a power plant is a metric that quantifies the actual output of
the power plant over a period of time, typically a year, as a ratio of its output if it were to
operate at its maximum possible output, referred to as the nameplate capacity, over the
same period of time [123,124]. It is a measure of the utilization of the power plant’s capacity
and is commonly used to compare the performance of different types of power plants. Here
are some average capacity factors for different types of electricity production [123,124]:
• Coal: 60–65%;
• Natural gas: 55–60%;
• Nuclear: 90–92%;
• Hydroelectric: 40–60%;
• Wind: 30–45%;
• Solar photovoltaic: 15–25%.
It is important to note that the capacity factors provided are general and global
averages, and may vary greatly depending on the individual power plant and its location.
Factors such as technology, efficiency, operation and maintenance, weather conditions,
and government policies can greatly impact the capacity factor of a specific power plant.
Therefore, it is essential to conduct a detailed analysis of the specific power plant in question
to obtain a more accurate representation of its capacity factor.
The efficiency of a power plant refers to the percentage of the energy content of the fuel
that is converted into usable electrical energy [125–129]. Here are some average efficiencies
for different types of power plants:
• Coal-fired power plants: 33–48%;
• Natural gas-fired power plants: 42–60%;
• Nuclear power plants: 33–48%;
• Hydroelectric power plants: 90–98%;
• Wind turbines: 25–45%;
• Solar photovoltaic power plants: 15–22%.
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 16 of 31

It is worth noting that the efficiencies provided are general averages and can vary
significantly depending on the specific power plant and the technology used. Additionally,
it is important to note that the efficiency and capacity factor are not directly related. Effi-
ciency refers to the ratio of the amount of useful energy produced by a power plant to the
amount of energy consumed, whereas capacity factor refers to the ratio of the actual output
of a power plant to its maximum possible output.

3.6. Emissions from Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear power plants do not produce emissions of CO2 or other GHGs during their
operation [130,131]. They generate electricity by using the heat produced by nuclear
reactions, rather than burning fossil fuels. This means that nuclear power plants do
not directly produce any emissions of GHGs that contribute to climate change (Table 5).
However, there are other emissions associated with the nuclear power plants; they include
the emissions produced during the mining and milling of uranium, the construction and
decommissioning of the power plants, and the management of nuclear waste. Additionally,
the emissions associated with the entire nuclear fuel cycle must be considered, including
emissions from uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and transportation.
The emissions associated with these processes are generally low, but can vary depending
on the location and method of mining, milling, and fuel fabrication.
Emissions from uranium mining can vary depending on the specific mining method
and location, but can include a variety of pollutants such as particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and GHGs [132,133]. The most common method for mining
uranium is open-pit mining, which can generate emissions from the use of diesel fuel in
equipment, as well as from the blasting and crushing of rocks. In situ leaching, another
method of mining uranium which is widely used, involves pumping a leaching solution
into the ground to dissolve the uranium, which can also result in emissions of the leaching
agents and other chemicals used in the process. Emissions from uranium mining can
also include the release of radioactive materials such as radon gas, which is a naturally
occurring radioactive gas that can be released during the mining and milling of uranium.
Additionally, the mining process can generate tailings, which are waste materials left over
after the uranium is extracted. These tailings can contain radioactive materials and other
pollutants, and can be a source of emissions if not properly managed. At the same time, it
is worth noting that the emissions from uranium mining are generally much lower than
those from coal mining, and the mining process has greatly improved over the recent years,
with regulations and industry standards that aim to minimize the environmental impact
and emissions [134]. Furthermore, the emissions associated with the entire nuclear fuel
cycle are still much lower than those from fossil-fuel-based power plants, which are major
contributors to GHG emissions and climate change.

Table 5. Emissions generated by different types of power plants [135–138].

CO2 Emissions NOx Emissions SO2 Emissions

Power Plant Type
(kg/MWh) (kg/MWh) (kg/MWh)
Coal 940–1100 0.10–0.40 0.10–2.00
Natural Gas 490–630 0.02–0.10 0.02–0.20
Nuclear 12 0.01 0.01
Hydroelectric 0 0.01–0.02 0.01–0.02
Onshore Wind 0 0.01–0.02 0.01–0.02
Offshore Wind 0 0.01–0.02 0.01–0.02
Solar PV 0 0.01–0.02 0.01–0.02
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 17 of 31

Table 5 provides a general overview of the emissions generated by different types

of power plants per unit of electricity generated. It includes emissions of CO2 , NOx , and
SO2 , which are the most common emissions from power plants. As can be seen from the
table, coal-fired power plants have the highest emissions of CO2 , NOx , and SO2 per unit
of electricity generated, followed by natural-gas-fired power plants, which have lower
emissions. On the other hand, renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, onshore
wind, offshore wind, and solar PV, have no emissions of CO2 , NOx , and SO2 . It is important
to note that these emission levels can vary depending on the specific conditions of each
power plant, such as the type of coal or gas used, the age and efficiency of the equipment,
and the level of emission control technology in place. Additionally, the emission level of a
power plant can also vary depending on local regulations and standards. Overall, Table 5
illustrates the importance of transitioning to renewable energy sources in order to reduce
the emissions generated by power plants and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

3.7. Nuclear Power Plant Safety

A nuclear accident is an event that results in significant consequences for people, the
environment, or the nuclear facility. These consequences can include fatalities, substantial
release of radioactive materials, and reactor core meltdowns. Despite the implementation of
procedures to reduce the risk of accidents and minimize the release of radioactive materials,
the potential for human error remains a concern [139].
The perception of the potential threat of nuclear accidents and the release of radioactive
materials from nuclear power generation is prevalent [139,140]. However, it is important to
note that the design and operation of nuclear power plants aims to minimize the likelihood
of accidents and the impact on human health and the environment when they do occur.
Throughout the history of commercial nuclear power operation, there have been only two
major reactor accidents: Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi [139,141,142]. Both of these
accidents resulted in significant radiation exposure to the public; however, it is important
to note that these are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 18,500 cumulative
reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 36 countries [143].
To achieve optimal safety, nuclear power plants operate using a ‘defense-in-depth’
methodology, which includes multiple safety systems and redundancy to prevent equip-
ment or operator failures from evolving into more significant problems [144]. This method-
ology includes high-quality design and construction, equipment that prevents operational
disruptions, thorough supervision and routine assessment, redundant and diverse systems
to control damage to the fuel, and the confinement of severe fuel damage to the plant itself.
This approach ensures that physical barriers are in place between the radioactive reactor
core and the environment, and multiple safety systems are in place, each with a backup
and designed to accommodate human error. In conclusion, the use of nuclear energy for
electricity generation can be considered exceptionally safe. The risk of accidents in nuclear
power plants is low and declining, and the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack
are minimal compared to other commonly accepted risks. Furthermore, nuclear energy
saves lives by shifting fossil fuel from the electricity mix.
Safety in nuclear energy depends on factors such as rational planning, appropriate
design with well-defined safety boundaries and backup systems, high-quality mechanisms,
and a well-developed safety culture in operations [145,146]. The operational lives of
reactors depend on maintaining their safety margins. Apart from the Chernobyl accident,
no nuclear workers or members of the public have died as a result of exposure to radiation
due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. The serious radiological injuries and deaths
that occur each year (2–4 deaths and many more exposures above regulatory limits) are
the result of large uncontrolled radiation sources, such as abandoned medical or industrial
equipment [147].
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 18 of 31

A commercial-type power reactor cannot, under any circumstances, explode like a

nuclear bomb, as the fuel is not enriched beyond 5%, much higher enrichment is needed
for explosives [148]. About 80% of all incidents in nuclear power plants are attributed to
human error, which is lower than some other industries. Of the incidents, 20% involve
equipment failures [149]. When the 80% human error is broken down further, it reveals
that the majority of errors associated with events stem from suppressed administrative
weaknesses, while about 30% are caused by the individual worker interacting with the
equipment and systems in the facility. Focusing efforts on reducing human error will
reduce the likelihood of nuclear incidents.

3.8. Small Modular Reactors

SMRs are a type of nuclear reactor that have a power capacity of up to 300 MW per
unit (Table 6). Their design features include being smaller in scale compared to conven-
tional nuclear power plants, modular in construction, and utilizing nuclear fission as the
primary mechanism for generating heat and electricity, resulting in zero emissions. The
advantages of SMRs include increased flexibility in deployment and operation, reduced
capital costs, and improved safety characteristics [43–47,57]. Six distinct types of SMRs can
be recognized [150]:
• Land-based water-cooled SMRs, which utilize pressurized water reactor (PWR), boil-
ing water reactor (BWR), or pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR) concepts, and
are currently in operation in countries such as China, India, and Russia;
• Marine-based water-cooled SMRs, which are similar to land-based water-cooled SMRs,
but are located on a barge or underwater. Russia currently has a two-unit 70 MW
power plant in operation, and China is currently constructing a 60 MW unit;
• High temperature gas-cooled SMRs, which are cooled by gases such as helium and
operate at temperatures as high as 1000 ◦ C, resulting in high-temperature and high-
pressure steam that increases the thermal efficiency of the generation process;
• Fast neutron spectrum SMRs, which utilize fast neutron spectrums for nuclear fission;
• Molten salt SMRs, which utilize a liquid salt coolant and fuel;
• Micro-sized SMRs, which have an extremely small power capacity.

Table 6. Small modular reactors in a conceptual and design development phase with potential for
near-term deployment [150].

Prototype Capacity (MW) Type Country

VBER-300 300 land/marine-based pressurized water reactor Russia
NuScale 60 land-based pressurized water reactor United States
SMR-160 160 land-based pressurized water reactor Canada
ACP100 125 land-based pressurized water reactor China
SMART 100 land-based pressurized water reactor South Korea
BWRX-300 300 land-based pressurized water reactor United states
PRISM 300 land-based sodium fast nuclear reactor United States
ARC-100 100 land-based sodium fast nuclear reactor United States
IMSR 192 land-based molten salt reactor Canada
BREST 300 land-based sodium fast nuclear reactor Russia
RITM-200M 50 marine-based pressurized water reactor Russia

The cost of SMRs can vary depending on the design and size of the reactor, as well
as the location and specific project. However, in general, SMRs are expected to be less
expensive to build and operate than traditional large-scale nuclear power plants. The cost
of an SMR can range from several hundred million to a couple of billion euros. The cost of
the project depends on the technology and design of the reactor, the location of the project,
and the regulatory environment. Additionally, the economies of the scale can affect the cost
as well. It is worth noting that the cost of SMRs is still in the early stages of development,
and it is hard to give an accurate estimate as the technology is still in the research and
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 19 of 31

development phase, and it will take time for the cost to come down as the technology
matures and economies of the scale increase [43–47,57,150].
Table 6 presents a list of 11 SMR designs that are in a well-developed phase and
have the potential for near-term deployment. As the table illustrates, the majority of the
proposed prototypes are land-based technologies, with the exception of the two Russian
projects that are marine-based. Additionally, the majority of the technologies that are
closest to being ready for release are PWRs, which is the simplest design among SMRs.
In a PWR, nuclear fission heats the water in the nuclear core, which is then pumped into
tubes inside a heat exchanger. The heat from these tubes is used to heat a separate water
source, creating steam that powers an electric generator to produce electricity. Apart from
PWRs, sodium fast reactor designs have also been relatively well-developed, with three
prototypes offered by the US, Canada, and Russia. Furthermore, Canada is the only country
that offers an innovative design for a molten salt reactor, which has the advantage of
effectively eliminating the risk of steam explosions, hydrogen explosions, or a meltdown
due to the nature of molten salt reactors. In general, SMRs offer a promising solution for the
generation of safe, clean, and reliable nuclear energy, as well as provide the benefits of the
large-scale reactors with the flexibility and scalability of smaller-scale reactors. Furthermore,
they can be used in a variety of applications, including electricity generation, process heat,
desalination, and hydrogen production [43–45,47,57,150].
SMRs make use of passive cooling systems that do not depend on the availability
of electric power. No electrical supplies or pumps are needed to cool down the reactor
in the event of an incident, as this is done by natural convection and the gravity coolant
feed. This feature ensures that the reactor will remain safe under severe accident condi-
tions. Furthermore, passive safety systems decrease the capital and maintenance costs
compared to large power reactors, and fundamentally change the economic equation in
favor of SMRs. However, innovative designs should still include reliable active backup
cooling systems. Existing small modular reactor designs have smaller, less robust con-
tainment systems than conventional nuclear reactors, which may increase the probability
of damage from hydrogen explosions. Therefore, modern designs should include mea-
sures to prevent hydrogen from reaching explosive concentrations. SMRs are expected
to be installed underground, which reduces the risk of various negative environmental
impacts [43–48,57,150].
In regard to SMRs, some researchers have raised concerns about a higher neutron
leakage compared to conventional nuclear power plants due to their smaller size. As
a result, this increased neutron leakage could increase the amount of produced nuclear
waste. Additionally, the spent nuclear fuel from SMRs would also be discharged in greater
volumes per unit than from conventional power plants. However, as previously mentioned,
there are well-defined techniques for nuclear waste disposal. Conversely, some studies
have shown that small modular reactors have reduced fuel requirements, hence power
plants based on SMRs require less frequent refueling compared to conventional plants.
Some designs of SMRs are intended to operate for up to 30 years without refueling. It is
uncertain how many of the concerns are truly justified and how many are based on political
considerations and ‘greenwashing’. Nevertheless, it is clear that if managed appropriately,
SMRs offer a lower initial capital investment, greater scalability, and siting flexibility for
locations unable to accommodate more traditional larger reactors [43–48,57,150].

3.9. Nuclear Waste Production

The amount of nuclear waste generated by SMRs is currently uncertain and is based on
experimental pilot projects. Nuclear waste metrics include the front-end waste generated
during the nuclear fuel manufacturing process, the back-end waste arising from spent nu-
clear fuel, and the end-of-life nuclear waste from the decommissioning of SMRs [47,150–154].
In regard to front-end waste, the depleted uranium mass is proportional to enrichment
and inversely proportional to burnup and thermal efficiency. VOYGR, the first SMR to
receive design approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, generates 23% more
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 20 of 31

depleted uranium mass than the reference pressurized water reactor, due to a higher fuel
uranium enrichment, lower burnup, and lower thermal efficiency [155,156]. However,
pilot designs such as Natrium and Xe-100 perform comparatively better in front-end waste
generation due to a higher burnup and thermal efficiency.
With regard to back-end waste, VOYGR generates 1.1 times the spent nuclear fuel
mass and 1.1 times the volume of the reference pressurized water reactor due to lower
burnup and thermal efficiency [155]. Natrium and Xe-100 designs generally perform better
than VOYGR and the reference PWR, generating 72% and 75% less spent nuclear fuel mass,
respectively, due to higher burnup and thermal efficiency [157]. Decommissioning class A,
B, and C low-level waste includes building materials activated by neutrons or contaminated
by radioactive isotopes. Greater-than-class-C low-level waste includes reactor components
located near the active core and activated above class C levels [158]. For PWRs, less than 1%
of decommissioning low-level waste is greater-than-class-C. The decommissioning volume
of class A, B, and C low-level waste for VOYGR is 10% smaller than the reference PWR [155].
However, the normalized greater-than-class-C volume for VOYGR is six times larger than
that of the reference PWR. Natrium and Xe-100 designs include radial neutron reflectors
and graphite blocks, respectively, that protect other core structures from activation, which
may result in an increase in greater-than-class-C waste [155,157]. Further research and
experimentation are necessary to determine the exact amount of nuclear waste generated
by SMRs.

3.10. Nuclear Waste Disposal and Recycling

The energy density of nuclear fuel is significantly high, making it an efficient energy
source that produces a relatively small amount of waste. Nuclear waste can be classified
into three categories: low-level, intermediate-level, and high-level waste [159,160]. Low-
level waste, accounting for 90% of all nuclear waste, represents only 1% of total radioactivity.
This type of waste is often non-radioactive and can be stored in landfills or incinerated to
reduce volume. Intermediate-level waste, representing 7% of the volume of nuclear waste
and 4% of total radioactivity, typically contains contaminated metals and materials from
the reactor core. This waste can also be stored in landfills or intermediate storage facilities
until the radioactivity decreases. High-level waste, comprising 3% of the volume of nuclear
waste and 95% of total radioactivity, is the used nuclear fuel containing uranium, thorium,
and plutonium. This type of waste is highly radioactive and requires special disposal
procedures, such as permanent disposal in a geological repository. This process includes
placing the waste in iron and copper canisters, which are then buried deep underground
and sealed with bentonite clay and cement seals. The borehole is then backfilled with a
mixture of cement, crushed rock, or similar materials.
The issue of final disposal of nuclear waste is a complex and contentious one, and it is
true that a universally accepted and fully implemented solution has not yet been achieved.
At the same time, it is clear that all the waste generated by the nuclear industry has a
defined method of disposal, and the methods are well-developed and thoroughly detailed;
thus, there is no real basis for concern [161–163]. Furthermore, in addition to disposal,
it is also possible to recycle and reuse most of the high-level waste as fuel in the same
reactor from which it came, or using it elsewhere, meaning that it is necessary to extract
the less radioactive ore, as the spent nuclear fuel still has more than 90% of its potential
energy [65]. However, nuclear fuel recycling is a complicated and expensive process, and it
is thus not a widely implemented approach [164]. Nevertheless, technology is constantly
developing and may make this process easier and cheaper in the future. Additionally, some
countries intentionally avoid reprocessing of nuclear waste because of the risk that the
material could be diverted for weapons [165,166]. In addition, not all nuclear waste can be
recycled: around 4% (the fission products) of the high-level waste cannot be recycled and
would still require disposal in a geological repository. Usually, these fission products are
immobilized through vitrification [167].
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 21 of 31

Currently, in countries that do not see a threat of proliferation (e.g., France, Japan,
Germany, Belgium), the recyclable spent nuclear fuel is fed into a chemical processing
system that separates actinide elements (e.g., uranium, thorium, plutonium) that can be
recycled as mixed-oxide fuel to produce more electrical power. Recycling is mainly focused
on the extraction of plutonium and uranium, as they can later be mixed with fresh uranium
and made into new nuclear fuel rods [168].

3.11. Nuclear Energy as a Replacement for Fossil Fuels

Although Latvia currently heavily relies on natural gas and hydroelectric power for its
energy needs, the Latvian government has formed a working group to assess the feasibility
of SMRs and their potential impact on Latvia’s energy security and decarbonization ef-
forts [169,170]. Additionally, as a member of the EU, Latvia is under pressure to contribute
to the EU’s ambitious targets for the decarbonization of the energy sector by 2050. The
authors believe that the principles used in this assessment can be applied to other countries
as well. The study suggests that nuclear energy through SMRs might be a viable option for
Latvia in the future, as it allows for achieving and exceeding net-zero emission goals and
guarantees a reliable source of energy.

3.12. Assessing the Future Implications of Nuclear Energy Deployment

Nuclear energy has the potential to play a significant role in reducing GHG emissions
and mitigating climate change. Nuclear power plants do not produce emissions of GHGs
during their operation, making it a low-carbon energy source. Nuclear energy can thus
contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions, which are a major contributor to global
warming. However, it is important to note that the use of nuclear energy as a means of
mitigating climate change is a complex issue and requires a thorough evaluation of various
factors. The environmental, safety, and security risks associated with nuclear power plants
are well known, and the management of nuclear waste is a technically challenging and
costly endeavor. Additionally, the construction and decommissioning of nuclear power
plants can also lead to significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, the availability of
nuclear fuel is limited, and the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation is a concern. While
nuclear energy has the potential to play a role in reducing GHG emissions and mitigating
climate change, a comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and benefits of nuclear
power is necessary to make a well-informed decision on its use as a means of addressing
climate change.
Latvia does not currently have any nuclear power plants, and therefore does not have
any specific regulations related to nuclear safety. However, as a member of the EU, Latvia
is subject to the EU’s nuclear safety regulations, which are designed to ensure the safe
operation of nuclear power plants, and the protection of people and the environment from
the potential risks associated with nuclear energy. The EU’s nuclear safety regulations cover
a wide range of topics, including design and construction of nuclear power plants, radiation
protection, emergency preparedness and response, and the management of radioactive
waste [171]. These regulations are enforced by the national regulatory authorities in each
EU member state and are subject to a regular review and updates to reflect new scientific
and technical developments. That being said, Latvia has a long history of opposition to
nuclear power, and the public acceptance of the technology is quite low. Therefore, even
if the country would consider the option of building a nuclear power plant, the public
perception and the potential political opposition would have to be considered as well. The
regulations require that waste management plans and the necessary waste management
organizations are in place before the operation of any nuclear power plants. Additionally,
the financing of nuclear waste management must be secured. It is important to note that
the management of radioactive waste is a complex and costly issue that requires long-term
planning and the involvement of various stakeholders, including the government, industry,
and the public. While Latvia currently does not have any nuclear power plants, it is
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 22 of 31

important for the country to be prepared for the management of radioactive waste should
it decide to develop nuclear energy in the future.

3.13. Exploring the Use of Nuclear Energy in Carbon Capture and Water Desalination
Nuclear energy can be used in carbon capture and water desalination [172]. Carbon
capture refers to the process of capturing CO2 emissions from power plants or other
industrial sources before they are released into the atmosphere. Nuclear power plants
produce electricity without emitting CO2 , so they can be used to generate electricity for
carbon capture systems. There are several ways in which nuclear energy can be used to
capture carbon:
• Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with carbon capture: this technology
uses nuclear energy to power an IGCC plant, which converts coal or other fossil fuels
into a gas. The gas is then cleared of impurities, and the CO2 is separated and captured
before it is released into the atmosphere [173];
• Hybrid nuclear-renewable power plants: nuclear energy can be combined with renew-
able energy sources, such as solar or wind power, to generate electricity. The excess
heat generated by the nuclear reactor can be used to power a carbon capture system,
which separates and captures CO2 emissions [174];
• Direct air capture (DAC): nuclear energy can be used to power DAC systems, which
remove CO2 directly from the air. These systems use a combination of chemical
and thermal processes to capture CO2 , which can then be stored or used for various
industrial applications [175];
• Advanced nuclear-based process heating: nuclear energy can also be used to provide
process heat for industrial processes, such as hydrogen production, that require high
temperatures. This can also produce CO2 as a by-product and capture it [176].
It is worth noting that CCS is a complex process and is still under development, and
it may not be the most cost-effective or efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions. It is also
important to consider the full life cycle of these systems, including the energy required to
build and maintain them, as well as the potential environmental impacts of storing the
captured CO2 .
Water desalination is the process of removing salt and other minerals from seawater
to make it potable [177]. Nuclear energy can be used to power the desalination process,
which typically involves heating seawater to create steam, which is then used to drive a
turbine and generate electricity. The electricity generated can then be used to power the
reverse osmosis process, which removes salt and other minerals from the seawater.

3.14. Nuclear Energy Versus Renewables

The three main sources of renewable energy are solar energy, wind energy, and
hydropower, while the source of nuclear energy is fission power [178,179]. Nuclear energy
is a stable and consistent source of energy, regardless of the location of the power plant,
while the efficiency of renewables is highly dependent on various external factors, such
as geographical location, seasonality, and time of the day, making them less reliable at
a large scale.
Carbon emissions are a major problem in the energy sector, and both the nuclear power
plants and renewable-based power plants produce zero carbon emissions during operation,
making them climate neutral. However, the mining and processing of radioactive materials
for use as fuel in nuclear power plants, as well as the mining and production of materials
required for renewable energy systems, do produce carbon emissions [130,131]. Therefore,
emissions cannot be used as a decisive argument for one option or the other.
Nuclear power plants have the advantage of requiring much less territory than
renewable-based power plants to produce the same amount of electricity. This is par-
ticularly true for SMRs when compared to, for example, wind farms. Additionally, the
lifetime of conventional nuclear power plants is around 40 years, with the potential for
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 23 of 31

extension of up to 60 years, while the lifetime of renewable energy technologies, such as

wind turbines and solar panels, is limited to around 20 years [180,181].
Another important aspect to consider when choosing an energy source is the waste
generated as a result of energy production. Renewable energy sources generate a significant
amount of waste due to the materials used to generate electricity and their comparatively
shorter lifetime. In contrast, radioactive waste from nuclear power plants can be disposed
of using deep geological repositories, and the radioactivity of the waste declines over
time [182–184].
Reliability is an important factor when choosing an energy source for electricity
production. Nuclear energy is a stable and consistent source of energy, while renewable
energy does not provide a steady flow of energy. For example, solar power cannot generate
electricity at night, and wind turbines do not generate electricity when wind is not blowing.
Furthermore, the efficiency of hydropower generation decreases as the water level of rivers
drops. Due to the unreliability of renewable energy, research is being conducted on energy
storage approaches, but current battery technology is not yet advanced enough to provide
a consistent energy source.
In conclusion, while renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower
are sustainable and renewable, they may not provide a consistent energy source for the
growing demands of the civilization. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is a stable and
consistent source of energy and can provide a reliable source of electricity while also being
climate neutral. However, it is important to take into consideration the environmental
impact, waste generation, and safety risks associated with nuclear energy. An optimal
energy mix would likely involve a combination of renewable energy sources and nuclear
energy, with continued research and development in both areas to improve efficiency and
reduce negative impacts.

4. Discussion
The transition to a carbon-free energy system is an ongoing and complex process,
requiring the implementation of multiple strategies to accelerate the transition. One ap-
proach is to reduce dependency on fossil fuels by utilizing alternative sources of energy,
such as nuclear energy, in situations where renewable resources are not readily available.
Additionally, decreasing carbon emissions from the electricity grid beyond the capabilities
of conventional clean energy sources can be achieved by accelerating the deployment
of innovative technologies and phasing out fossil fuels. To achieve this, promoting the
electrification of buildings, transportation, and other sectors and ensuring they are pow-
ered by carbon-free energy is crucial [2–9]. Improving grid resilience by incorporating a
diverse range of carbon-free energy technologies to provide round-the-clock electricity, and
directing support efforts to regions where access to carbon-free energy is limited due to
policy or market constraints are also important considerations. Moreover, enhancing the
health and living conditions of communities affected by fossil fuel production is also a
crucial step.
Currently, the world’s electricity generation is primarily reliant on fossil fuels (62%),
with 28% coming from renewables and only 10% coming from nuclear energy [185–187].
This reliance on fossil fuels is driving an increase in GHG emissions. Despite the gradual
shift toward low-carbon technologies and an increasing mastery of renewable resources,
the pace of the transition is not sufficient to address the urgent need for decarbonization.
Energy efficiency is a critical component in the process of decarbonization, as it involves
using less energy to perform the same task. This not only reduces energy waste, but also
brings a variety of benefits such as reducing GHG emissions, reducing the demand for
energy imports, and lowering costs at both household and economy-wide levels, all which
are essential in mitigating climate change.
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 24 of 31

The utilization of fossil fuels is posing an immediate threat to the climate and living
conditions on Earth, is unsustainable in the long term due to finite resource availability.
As a result, significant focus has been placed on the development and implementation
of renewable energy sources. These alternative energy sources are viewed as a potential
solution to the depletion of fossil fuels and have thus attracted significant investment,
leading to advancements and innovations in the field. However, there is also a trend
toward phasing out nuclear energy due to perceived risks [166,188]. It is important to note,
however, that abandoning nuclear energy at this time, particularly in light of the current
energy crisis and the need for sustainable energy development in the future, may not be a
prudent decision.
While renewable energy sources are often touted as the future of energy production,
current technological limitations, particularly in regard to energy storage, necessitate the
use of supplementary, emission-free sources of power [116–119]. Nuclear energy, as a
proven and efficient energy source, may serve as a viable option to support and backup
electricity generated by renewables. Additionally, the excessive allocation of resources
toward the development and implementation of renewable energy sources, such as solar
and wind, may not be the most efficient use of resources due to the low efficiency and
reliability of these energy sources. Therefore, increased investment in nuclear power may
be necessary to bridge this knowledge gap, promote progress in the field, and ensure a
reliable and efficient source of emission-free energy.
It is difficult to say whether Latvia can afford an SMR without more information on
the specific costs and financing options for the project, as well as Latvia’s current budget
and economic situation. However, it is worth noting that SMRs are generally considered to
be less expensive to build and operate than traditional large-scale nuclear power plants.
This is partly because they are smaller and therefore require less initial investment and less
complex infrastructure, and partly because they are designed to be factory-built, which can
reduce construction costs [43–46]. Additionally, they can be built in smaller numbers than
large reactors, which can also reduce costs. That being said, Latvia’s economy is relatively
small, and it may not have the financial resources to invest in a small modular reactor on
its own. The country would likely have to secure funding from external sources, such as
international organizations or other countries. Additionally, it is important to consider the
regulations, laws and the public acceptance of such technology in Latvia as well.

5. Conclusions
The main objective of this review was to present a compelling argument for the
utilization of nuclear energy in meeting the rapidly increasing demand for electricity, and
to evaluate its potential role in the future of green energy. The findings of this review
provide initial evidence of the beneficial properties of nuclear energy and support the
development and implementation of SMR technology, which can both generate electricity
and reduce carbon emissions. However, it is important to acknowledge that certain political
considerations and strong opposition may hinder the practical application of these findings.
Therefore, the authors argue that there is a fundamental need for public education about
the benefits and safety of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is essential in addressing climate change and reducing GHG emissions,
while providing a significant and growing amount of electricity. Society needs to be aware
of the potential of this form of energy and how it can quickly transition away from fossil
fuels. Additionally, SMRs can be combined with renewable energy sources to create a
hybrid energy system, thus increasing the efficiency of renewable resources. Nuclear
energy is a safe, sustainable, and carbon-free form of energy with enormous potential, but
fear relating to nuclear energy is often irrational and based on political propaganda and
“greenwashing”. Together with renewables, nuclear energy is the only low-carbon source
of energy that can replace fossil fuels with the current technology and discoveries.
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 25 of 31

Further research is needed to examine the potential of nuclear energy in the green
energy mix at a local scale, as well as develop proposals for energy-efficient nuclear reactors
and explore the nature of nuclear waste disposal and recycling in more detail. Additionally,
assessing the potential of nuclear energy for small economies would be an important
step in evaluating its significance in ensuring energy stability and independence for small
countries. To further advance the utilization of nuclear energy as a low-carbon source
of energy, potential recommendations for future work include conducting more research
to explore its potential in the green energy mix at a local scale, developing proposals for
energy-efficient nuclear reactors, assessing its significance for small economies, exploring
nuclear waste disposal and recycling in more detail, and developing public education
campaigns that emphasize the benefits and safety of nuclear energy to counteract political
propaganda and “greenwashing.” It is important to continue addressing limitations and
expanding on the promising conclusions presented in the review paper to help meet
the goals of the Paris Agreement, and provide a steady and reliable source of electricity
necessary for running and growing advanced economies, as well as enabling developing
countries to boost economic output and raise living standards.
In conclusion, the current review provides evidence of the high importance of nuclear
energy in addressing the ongoing climate and resource crisis. In order to meet the goals of
the Paris Agreement, the use of renewables will continue to grow; however, it is important
to emphasize that nuclear energy already provides a steady and reliable source of electricity
necessary for running and growing advanced economies, and for enabling developing
countries to boost economic output and raise living standards. Future research should
focus on addressing limitations and expanding on the promising conclusions presented in
this review.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.K.; methodology, J.K.; validation, J.K. and M.K.; formal
analysis, J.K.; investigation, J.K.; resources, J.K. and M.K.; data curation, J.K.; writing—original
draft preparation, J.K. and M.K.; writing—review and editing, J.K. and M.K.; visualization, J.K.;
supervision, M.K.; project administration, M.K.; funding acquisition, M.K. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the European Regional Development Fund project “Innovation
of the waste-to-energy concept for the low carbon economy: development of novel carbon capture
technology for thermochemical processing of municipal solid waste (carbon capture and storage from
waste–CCSW)”, grant number 1.1.1.1/19/A/013.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Fawzy, S.; Osman, A.I.; Doran, J.; Rooney, D.W. Strategies for mitigation of climate change: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020,
18, 2069–2094. [CrossRef]
2. Azevedo, I.; Bataille, C.; Bistline, J.; Clarke, L.; Davis, S. Net-zero emissions energy systems: What we know and do not know.
Energy Clim. Change 2021, 2, 100049. [CrossRef]
3. Wei, M.; McMillan, C.A.; de la Rue du Can, S. Electrification of industry: Potential, challenges and outlook. Curr. Sustain. Renew.
Energy Rep. 2019, 6, 140–148. [CrossRef]
4. Electrification. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/electrification (accessed on 2 March 2023).
5. Binsted, M. An electrified road to climate goals. Nat. Energy 2022, 7, 9–10. [CrossRef]
6. How Electrification Can Supercharge the Energy Transition. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/
electrification-energy-transition-decarbonization-climate-change/ (accessed on 2 March 2023).
7. Plugging in: What Electrification Can Do for Industry. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-
and-natural-gas/our-insights/plugging-in-what-electrification-can-do-for-industry (accessed on 2 March 2023).
8. Zhang, R.; Fujimori, S. The role of transport electrification in global climate change mitigation scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020,
15, 034019. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 26 of 31

9. Yadoo, A.; Cruickshank, H. The role for low carbon electrification technologies in poverty reduction and climate change strategies:
A focus on renewable energy mini grids with case studies in Nepal, Peru and Kenya. Energy Policy 2012, 42, 591–602. [CrossRef]
10. Chen, F.; Taylor, N.; Kringos, N. Electrification of roads: Opportunities and challenges. Appl. Energy 2015, 150, 109–119. [CrossRef]
11. Martins, F.; Felgueiras, C.; Smitkova, M.; Caetano, N. Analysis of fossil fuel energy consumption and environmental impacts in
European countries. Energies 2019, 12, 964. [CrossRef]
12. Kotcher, J.; Maibach, E.; Choi, W.T. Fossil fuels are harming our brains: Identifying key messages about the health effects of air
pollution from fossil fuels. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1079. [CrossRef]
13. Fossil Fuels Led in Electricity Generation in 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-
news/-/ddn-20220630-1 (accessed on 2 March 2023).
14. The Role of Fossil Fuels in a Sustainable Energy System. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/role-fossil-
fuels-sustainable-energy-system (accessed on 2 March 2023).
15. Fossil Fuels & Health. Available online: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/fossil-fuels-health/ (accessed on 2
March 2023).
16. Fact Sheet I Climate, Environmental, and Health Impacts of Fossil Fuels (2021). Available online: https://www.eesi.org/papers/
view/fact-sheet-climate-environmental-and-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-2021 (accessed on 2 March 2023).
17. Abas, N.; Kalair, A.; Khan, N. Review of fossil fuels and future energy technologies. Futures 2015, 69, 31–49. [CrossRef]
18. Elías-Maxil, J.A.; Van Der Hoek, J.P.; Hofman, J.; Rietveld, L. Energy in the urban water cycle: Actions to reduce the total
expenditure of fossil fuels with emphasis on heat reclamation from urban water. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 30, 808–820.
[CrossRef]
19. Gielen, D.; Boshell, F.; Saygin, D.; Bazilian, M.D.; Wagner, N.; Gorini, R. The role of renewable energy in the global energy
transformation. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019, 24, 38–50. [CrossRef]
20. Saygin, D.; Kempener, R.; Wagner, N.; Ayuso, M.; Gielen, D. The implications for renewable energy innovation of doubling the
share of renewables in the global energy mix between 2010 and 2030. Energies 2015, 8, 5828–5865. [CrossRef]
21. Amano, R.S. Review of wind turbine research in 21st century. J. Energy Res. Technol. 2017, 139, 050801. [CrossRef]
22. Barthelmie, R.J.; Pryor, S.C. Climate change mitigation potential of wind energy. Climate 2021, 9, 136. [CrossRef]
23. Makrides, G.; Zinsser, B.; Norton, M.; Georghiou, G.E.; Schubert, M.; Werner, J.H. Potential of photovoltaic systems in countries
with high solar irradiation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 754–762. [CrossRef]
24. Adelakun, N.O.; Olanipekun, B.A. A review of solar energy. J. Multidisc. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2019, 6, 11344–11347. [CrossRef]
25. Wind Surpassed Nuclear Power in the US for the First Time on March 29—And then Did It Again. Available online: https:
//qz.com/2155659/wind-surpassed-nuclear-power-output-in-the-us-for-the-first-time (accessed on 10 February 2023).
26. Shellenberger, M. The Nuclear Option: Renewables Can’t Save the Planet—But Uranium Can. Foreign Aff. 2017, 96, 159–165.
27. Lyman, R. Why Renewable Energy Cannot Replace. Fossil Fuels by 2050; Friends of Science Society: Calgary, AB, Canada, 2016; 44p.
28. Dogaru, L. The main goals of the fourth industrial revolution. renewable energy perspectives. Procedia Manufact. 2020, 46, 397–401.
[CrossRef]
29. Haas, R.; Lettner, G.; Auer, H.; Duic, N. The looming revolution: How photovoltaics will change electricity markets in Europe
fundamentally. Energy 2013, 57, 38–43. [CrossRef]
30. Olabi, A.G.; Onumaegbu, C.; Wilberforce, T.; Ramadan, M.; Abdelkareem, M.A.; Al–Alami, A.H. Critical review of energy storage
systems. Energy 2021, 214, 118987. [CrossRef]
31. Ribeiro, P.F.; Johnson, B.K.; Crow, M.L.; Arsoy, A.; Liu, Y. Energy storage systems for advanced power applications. Proc. IEEE
2001, 89, 1744–1756. [CrossRef]
32. Rübbelke, D.; Vögele, S. Impacts of climate change on European critical infrastructures: The case of the power sector. Environ. Sci.
Policy 2011, 14, 53–63. [CrossRef]
33. Baatz, C. Climate change and individual duties to reduce GHG emissions. Ethics Policy Environ. 2014, 17, 1–19. [CrossRef]
34. Lamb, W.F.; Wiedmann, T.; Pongratz, J.; Andrew, R.; Crippa, M.; Olivier, J.G.; Wiendehofer, D.; Mattioli, G.; Al Khourdajie, A.;
House, J.; et al. A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021,
16, 073005. [CrossRef]
35. Van Aalst, M.K. The impacts of climate change on the risk of natural disasters. Disasters 2006, 30, 5–18. [CrossRef]
36. Benevolenza, M.A.; DeRigne, L. The impact of climate change and natural disasters on vulnerable populations: A systematic
review of literature. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2019, 29, 266–281. [CrossRef]
37. Lal, R.; Delgado, J.A.; Groffman, P.M.; Millar, N.; Dell, C.; Rotz, A. Management to mitigate and adapt to climate change. J. Soil
Water Cons. 2011, 66, 276–285. [CrossRef]
38. Susskind, L.; Kim, A. Building local capacity to adapt to climate change. Clim. Policy 2022, 22, 593–606. [CrossRef]
39. Shindell, D.; Smith, C.J. Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels. Nature 2019, 573, 408–411. [CrossRef]
40. Kim, J.H.; Alameri, S.A. Harmonizing nuclear and renewable energy: Case studies. Inter. J. Energy Res. 2020, 44, 8053–8061.
[CrossRef]
41. Ruth, M.F.; Zinaman, O.R.; Antkowiak, M.; Boardman, R.D.; Cherry, R.S.; Bazilian, M.D. Nuclear-renewable hybrid energy
systems: Opportunities, interconnections, and needs. Energy Conv. Manag. 2014, 78, 684–694. [CrossRef]
42. Cany, C.; Mansilla, C.; Da Costa, P.; Mathonnière, G.; Duquesnoy, T.; Baschwitz, A. Nuclear and intermittent renewables: Two
compatible supply options? The case of the French power mix. Energy Policy 2016, 95, 135–146. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 27 of 31

43. Islam, M.R.; Gabbar, H.A. Study of small modular reactors in modern microgrids. Inter. Trans. Electric. Energy Syst. 2015, 25,
1943–1951. [CrossRef]
44. Michaelson, D.; Jiang, J. Review of integration of small modular reactors in renewable energy microgrids. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2021, 152, 111638. [CrossRef]
45. Rath, M.; Morgan, M.G. Assessment of a hybrid system that uses small modular reactors (SMRs) to back up intermittent
renewables and desalinate water. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2020, 122, 103269. [CrossRef]
46. Iyer, G.; Hultman, N.; Fetter, S.; Kim, S. Implications of small modular reactors for climate change mitigation. Energy Econ. 2014,
45, 144–154. [CrossRef]
47. Krall, L.M.; Macfarlane, A.M.; Ewing, R.C. Nuclear waste from small modular reactors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119,
e2111833119. [CrossRef]
48. Stanford’s Questionable Study on Spent Nuclear Fuel for SMRs. Available online: https://neutronbytes.com/2022/05/31
/stanfords-questionable-study-on-spent-nuclear-fuel-for-smrs/ (accessed on 10 February 2023).
49. Light Water Reactors. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/light-water-reactors (accessed on 2
March 2023).
50. Boiling Water Reactor. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/boiling-water-reactor (accessed on
2 March 2023).
51. High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors. Available online: https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_20497/high-temperature-gas-
cooled-reactors#:~:text=High-temperature%20gas-cooled%20reactors%20%28HTGRs%29%2C%20also%20known%20as%20
very-high-temperature,outlet%20temperature%20in%20the%20order%20of%201%20000%C2%B0C (accessed on 2 March 2023).
52. Friederich, S.; Boudry, M. Ethics of nuclear energy in times of climate change: Escaping the collective action problem. Phil. Technol.
2022, 35, 30. [CrossRef]
53. Monast, J.J. The Ends and Means of Decarbonization. Environ. Law 2020, 50, 21–43.
54. Buongiorno, J.; Parsons, J.E.; Petti, D.A.; Parsons, J. The future of nuclear energy in a carbon-constrained world. IEEE Power
Energy Mag. 2019, 17, 69–72. [CrossRef]
55. Brook, B.W.; Bradshaw, C.J. Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 702–712.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Kuo, W. Reliability and nuclear power. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 2011, 60, 365. [CrossRef]
57. Vujić, J.; Bergmann, R.M.; Škoda, R.; Miletić, M. Small modular reactors: Simpler, safer, cheaper? Energy 2012, 45, 288–295.
[CrossRef]
58. Bariss, U.; Bazbauers, G.; Blumberga, A.; Blumberga, D. System dynamics modeling of households’ electricity consumption and
cost-income ratio: A case study of Latvia. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2017, 20, 36–50. [CrossRef]
59. Porubova, J.; Bazbauers, G. Analysis of long-term plan for energy supply system for Latvia that is 100% based on the use of local
energy resources. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2010, 4, 82–90. [CrossRef]
60. Rozentale, L.; Lauka, D.; Blumberga, D. Accelerating power generation with solar panels. Case in Latvia. Energy Procedia 2018,
147, 600–606. [CrossRef]
61. A Demographic Portrait of Latvia Today . . . and Tomorrow. Available online: http://certusdomnica.lv/wp-content/uploads/20
17/05/web_Certus_LatvijasDemografiskaisPortrets_2017_EN-1.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2023).
62. Blumberga, A.; Lauka, D.; Barisa, A.; Blumberga, D. Modelling the Baltic power system till 2050. Energy Conv. Manag. 2016, 107, 67–75.
[CrossRef]
63. Smigins, R.; Shipkovs, P. Biofuels in transport sector of Latvia: Experience, current status and barriers. Lat. J. Physics Tech. Sci.
2014, 51, 32–43. [CrossRef]
64. 3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-
nuclear-clean-and-sustainable (accessed on 11 February 2023).
65. 5 Fast Facts about Nuclear Energy. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy
(accessed on 11 February 2023).
66. Towards a Just Energy Transition: Nuclear Power Boasts Best Paid Jobs in Clean Energy Sector. Available online: https://www.
iaea.org/newscenter/news/towards-a-just-energy-transition-nuclear-power-boasts-best-paid-jobs-in-clean-energy-sector (ac-
cessed on 11 February 2023).
67. Electricity Generation. Available online: https://data.oecd.org/energy/electricity-generation.htm (accessed on 11 February 2023).
68. Understanding and Using the Energy Balance. Available online: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/understanding-and-using-
the-energy-balance (accessed on 11 February 2023).
69. Overview of Electricity Production and Use in Europe. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/
overview-of-the-electricity-production-2/assessment-4 (accessed on 11 February 2023).
70. Su, C.L.; Kirschen, D. Quantifying the effect of demand response on electricity markets. IEEE Trans. Power Sys. 2009, 24, 1199–1207.
71. Energy Education. Available online: https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Total_final_consumption (accessed on 11
February 2023).
72. Scarlat, N.; Prussi, M.; Padella, M. Quantification of the carbon intensity of electricity produced and used in Europe. Appl. Energy
2022, 305, 117901. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 28 of 31

73. Energy Production and Consumption. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption (accessed

on 11 February 2023).
74. Singh, A.K.; Ibraheem, S.K.; Muazzam, M.; Chaturvedi, D.K. An overview of electricity demand forecasting techniques. Netw.
Complex Syst. 2013, 3, 38–48.
75. Taylor, J.W.; Buizza, R. Using weather ensemble predictions in electricity demand forecasting. Int. J. Forecast. 2003, 19, 57–70.
[CrossRef]
76. Al-Alawi, S.M.; Islam, S.M. Principles of electricity demand forecasting. I. Methodologies. Power Eng. J. 1996, 10, 139–143.
[CrossRef]
77. Ryan, N.A.; Johnson, J.X.; Keoleian, G.A. Comparative assessment of models and methods to calculate grid electricity emissions.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 8937–8953. [CrossRef]
78. Hawkes, A.D. Long-run marginal CO2 emissions factors in national electricity systems. Appl. Energy 2014, 125, 197–205. [CrossRef]
79. IEA CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Statistics: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy. Available online: https://www.
oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/data/iea-co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-statistics_co2-data-en (accessed on 11 February 2023).
80. Shiraki, H.; Ashina, S.; Kameyama, Y.; Hashimoto, S.; Fujita, T. Analysis of optimal locations for power stations and their impact
on industrial symbiosis planning under transition toward low-carbon power sector in Japan. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 81–94.
[CrossRef]
81. Jordaan, S.M.; Combs, C.; Guenther, E. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation: A systematic review of spatiotemporal
methods. Adv. Appl. Energy 2021, 3, 100058. [CrossRef]
82. How Much Coal, Natural Gas, or Petroleum is Used to Generate a Kilowatt Hour of Electricity? Available online: https:
//www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=3 (accessed on 11 February 2023).
83. Joskow, P.L.; Parsons, J.E. The economic future of nuclear power. Daedalus 2009, 138, 45–59. [CrossRef]
84. Rhodes, R. Why nuclear power must be part of the energy solution. Yale Environ. 2018, 360, 19.
85. Rothwell, G. Utilization and service: Decomposing nuclear reactor capacity factors. Res. Energy 1990, 12, 215–229. [CrossRef]
86. Shafiee, S.; Topal, E. When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energy Policy 2009, 37, 181–189. [CrossRef]
87. Mohr, S.H.; Wang, J.; Ellem, G.; Ward, J.; Giurco, D. Projection of world fossil fuels by country. Fuel 2015, 141, 120–135. [CrossRef]
88. Fossil Fuels Still Supply 84 Percent of World Energy—And Other Eye Openers from BP’s Annual Review. Available on-
line: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-
emissions-in-2019/?sh=789baf6266a1 (accessed on 11 February 2023).
89. Energy Mix. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix (accessed on 11 February 2023).
90. Net Electricity Consumption Worldwide in Select Years from 1980 to 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/
280704/world-power-consumption/ (accessed on 11 February 2023).
91. Kamin, S.; Kearns, J. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Global Industrial Production; American Enterprise Institute: Washington,
DC, USA, 2021.
92. Gaigalis, V.; Skema, R. A review on solid biofuel usage in Lithuania after the decommission of Ignalina NPP and compliance with
the EU policy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 974–988. [CrossRef]
93. Augutis, J.; Krikštolaitis, R.; Pečiulytė, S.; Konstantinavičiūtė, I. Sustainable development and energy security level after Ignalina
NPP shutdown. Technol. Econ. Develop. Economy 2011, 17, 5–21. [CrossRef]
94. Multer, I. Exploring the safety of Ignalina. Nucl. Eng. Inter. 1987, 32, 21–22.
95. Latvian Electricity Market Overview. Available online: https://www.ast.lv/en/electricity-market-review (accessed on 11
February 2023).
96. Latvia Ranks Third in EU for Renewable Energy Use. Available online: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/environment/latvia-
ranks-third-in-eu-for-renewable-energy-use.a492379/ (accessed on 11 February 2023).
97. Latvenergo. Available online: https://latvenergo.lv/en/par-mums/razosana (accessed on 11 February 2023).
98. Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/climate-change/paris-
agreement/ (accessed on 11 February 2023).
99. Electricity Production in Latvia up 1.8%, Consumption up 3.5%. Available online: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/economy/economy/
electricity-production-in-latvia-up-18-consumption-up-35.a439925/ (accessed on 11 February 2023).
100. Electricity. Available online: https://www.sprk.gov.lv/en/content/electricity (accessed on 11 February 2023).
101. Use of Renewables for Electricity. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/NRG_IND_URED_
_custom_4914664/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 11 February 2023).
102. Renewable Energy Targets. Available online: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-
directive-targets-and-rules/renewable-energy-targets_en (accessed on 11 February 2023).
103. The Cost of Electricity. Available online: http://open-electricity-economics.org/book/text/03.html (accessed on 11 February 2023).
104. Economics of Nuclear Power. Available online: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-
of-nuclear-power.aspx (accessed on 11 February 2023).
105. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-
electricity-2020 (accessed on 11 February 2023).
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 29 of 31

106. SMR Regulators’ Forum. Pilot Project Report: Considering the Application of a Graded Approach, Defense-in-Depth and
Emergency Planning Zone Size for Small Modular Reactors. Available online: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/18/01/
smr-rf-report-29012018.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2023).
107. Monyei, C.G.; Sovacool, B.K.; Brown, M.A.; Jenkins, K.E.; Viriri, S.; Li, Y. Justice, poverty, and electricity decarbonization. Electric.
J. 2019, 32, 47–51. [CrossRef]
108. Luo, S.; Hu, W.; Liu, W.; Xu, X.; Huang, Q.; Chen, Z.; Lund, H. Transition pathways towards a deep decarbonization energy
system—A case study in Sichuan, China. Appl. Energy 2021, 302, 117507. [CrossRef]
109. Jägemann, C.; Fürsch, M.; Hagspiel, S.; Nagl, S. Decarbonizing Europe’s power sector by 2050—Analyzing the economic
implications of alternative decarbonization pathways. Energy Econ. 2013, 40, 622–636. [CrossRef]
110. Beccarello, M.; Di Foggia, G. Review and Perspectives of Key Decarbonization Drivers to 2030. Energies 2023, 16, 1345. [CrossRef]
111. Garimella, S.; Lockyear, K.; Pharis, D.; El Chawa, O.; Hughes, M.T.; Kini, G. Realistic pathways to decarbonization of building
energy systems. Joule 2022, 6, 956–971. [CrossRef]
112. Papadis, E.; Tsatsaronis, G. Challenges in the decarbonization of the energy sector. Energy 2020, 205, 118025. [CrossRef]
113. Heating and Cooling. Available online: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/heating-and-cooling_en (accessed
on 11 February 2023).
114. Cansino, J.M.; Pablo-Romero, M.D.P.; Román, R.; Yñiguez, R. Promoting renewable energy sources for heating and cooling in
EU-27 countries. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3803–3812. [CrossRef]
115. Kolaitis, D.I.; Malliotakis, E.; Kontogeorgos, D.A.; Mandilaras, I.; Katsourinis, D.I.; Founti, M.A. Comparative assessment
of internal and external thermal insulation systems for energy efficient retrofitting of residential buildings. Energy Build.
2013, 64, 123–131. [CrossRef]
116. Khezri, R.; Mahmoudi, A.; Aki, H. Optimal planning of solar photovoltaic and battery storage systems for grid-connected
residential sector: Review, challenges and new perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111763. [CrossRef]
117. Rana, M.M.; Uddin, M.; Sarkar, M.R.; Shafiullah, G.M.; Mo, H.; Atef, M. A review on hybrid photovoltaic–Battery energy storage
system: Current status, challenges, and future directions. J. Energy Storage 2022, 51, 104597. [CrossRef]
118. Zahedi, A. Maximizing solar PV energy penetration using energy storage technology. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 866–870.
[CrossRef]
119. Guney, M.S.; Tepe, Y. Classification and assessment of energy storage systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 1187–1197.
[CrossRef]
120. Hiremath, R.B.; Shikha, S.; Ravindranath, N.H. Decentralized energy planning; modeling and application—A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2007, 11, 729–752. [CrossRef]
121. Debnath, K.B.; Mourshed, M. Forecasting methods in energy planning models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 88, 297–325.
[CrossRef]
122. Pohekar, S.D.; Ramachandran, M. Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2004, 8, 365–381. [CrossRef]
123. Bolson, N.; Prieto, P.; Patzek, T. Capacity factors for electrical power generation from renewable and nonrenewable sources. Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2205429119. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. Naderi, S.; Banifateme, M.; Pourali, O.; Behbahaninia, A.; MacGill, I.; Pignatta, G. Accurate capacity factor calculation of
waste-to-energy power plants based on availability analysis and design/off-design performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 123167.
[CrossRef]
125. Cook, W.D.; Green, R.H. Evaluating power plant efficiency: A hierarchical model. Comput. Oper. Res. 2005, 32, 813–823. [CrossRef]
126. Plant Efficiency and Fuel Switching. Available online: https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-4-3-1.html
(accessed on 12 February 2023).
127. Energy Efficiency Indicators for Public Electricity Production from Fossil Fuels. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
deliver/9789264061996-en.pdf?itemId=/content/publication/9789264061996-en&mimeType=application/pdf (accessed on 12
February 2023).
128. Fonseca-Junior, M.; Holanda-Bezerra, U.; Cabral-Leite, J.; Reyes-Carvajal, T.L. Maintenance management program through
the implementation of predictive tools and TPM as a contribution to improving energy efficiency in power plants. Dyna
2015, 82, 139–149. [CrossRef]
129. Jenkins, P.; Elmnifi, M.; Younis, A.; Emhamed, A. Hybrid power generation by using solar and wind energy: Case study. World J.
Mech. 2019, 9, 81–93. [CrossRef]
130. Sovacool, B.K. Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 2950–2963.
[CrossRef]
131. Mathew, M.D. Nuclear energy: A pathway towards mitigation of global warming. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2022, 143, 104080. [CrossRef]
132. Parker, D.J.; McNaughton, C.S.; Sparks, G.A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from uranium mining and milling in Canada.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 9746–9753. [CrossRef]
133. Mudd, G.M.; Diesendorf, M. Sustainability of uranium mining and milling: Toward quantifying resources and eco-efficiency.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 2624–2630. [CrossRef]
134. Sertyesilisik, B.; Melaine, Y. Nuclear power in the global warming era: Environmental, economic, and policy considerations.
Environ. Quality Manag. 2010, 19, 55–66. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 30 of 31

135. Hondo, H. Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case. Energy 2005, 30, 2042–2056. [CrossRef]
136. Wang, M.; Yao, M.; Wang, S.; Qian, H.; Zhang, P.; Wang, Y.; Wei, W. Study of the emissions and spatial distributions of various
power-generation technologies in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 278, 111401. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
137. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-power-plants
(accessed on 12 February 2023).
138. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Electricity. Available online: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-
the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity.aspx (accessed on 12 February 2023).
139. Ohba, T.; Tanigawa, K.; Liutsko, L. Evacuation after a nuclear accident: Critical reviews of past nuclear accidents and proposal for
future planning. Environ. Int. 2021, 148, 106379. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
140. Mileti, D.S.; Peek, L. The social psychology of public response to warnings of a nuclear power plant accident. J. Hazard. Mater.
2000, 75, 181–194. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
141. Waddington, I.; Thomas, P.J.; Taylor, R.H.; Vaughan, G.J. J-value assessment of relocation measures following the nuclear power
plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2017, 112, 16–49. [CrossRef]
142. Howard, B.J.; Fesenko, S.; Balonov, M.; Pröhl, G.; Nakayama, S. A comparison of remediation after the Chernobyl and Fukushima
Daiichi accidents. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2017, 173, 170–176.
143. Kröger, W.; Sornette, D.; Ayoub, A. Towards safer and more sustainable ways for exploiting nuclear power. World J. Nucl. Sci.
Technol. 2020, 10, 91–115. [CrossRef]
144. Lim, J.; Kim, H.; Park, Y. Review of the regulatory periodic inspection system from the viewpoint of defense-in-depth in nuclear
safety. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2018, 50, 997–1005. [CrossRef]
145. Wheatley, S.; Sovacool, B.K.; Sornette, D. Reassessing the safety of nuclear power. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 15, 96–100. [CrossRef]
146. Zhan, L.; Bo, Y.; Lin, T.; Fan, Z. Development and outlook of advanced nuclear energy technology. Energy Strategy Rev.
2021, 34, 100630. [CrossRef]
147. Turai, I.; Veress, K. Radiation accidents: Occurrence, types, consequences, medical management, and the lessons to be learned.
Cent. Eur. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2001, 7, 3–14.
148. Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors. Available online: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-
of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx (accessed on 12 February 2023).
149. The Incidence of Human Error in the Handling of Nuclear Weapons. Available online: https://centredelas.org/actualitat/the-
incidence-of-human-error-in-the-handling-of-nuclear-weapons/?lang=en (accessed on 12 February 2023).
150. Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Nuclear Power Plants: Interesting but Not Ready for Prime Time. Available online:
https://www.enerdynamics.com/Energy-Insider_Blog/Small-Modular-Reactor-SMR-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Interesting-
but-Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time.aspx (accessed on 12 February 2023).
151. Locatelli, G.; Bingham, C.; Mancini, M. Small modular reactors: A comprehensive overview of their economics and strategic
aspects. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2014, 73, 75–85. [CrossRef]
152. Nian, V. The prospects of small modular reactors in Southeast Asia. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2017, 98, 131–142. [CrossRef]
153. Liu, X.; Wei, F.; Xu, C.; Liao, Y.; Jiang, J. Characteristics and classification of solid radioactive waste from the front-end of the
uranium fuel cycle. Health Phys. 2015, 109, 183–186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
154. Pryor, K.H. End of life decisions for sealed radioactive sources. Health Phys. 2016, 110, 168–174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
155. VOYGR Plant Models. Available online: https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/products/voygr-smr-plants (accessed on 12
February 2023).
156. Rothwell, G. Projected electricity costs in international nuclear power markets. Energy Policy 2022, 164, 112905. [CrossRef]
157. Reactor: Xe-100. Available online: https://x-energy.com/reactors/xe-100 (accessed on 12 February 2023).
158. Low-Level Waste Disposal. Available online: https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/very-llw.html (accessed on 12 February 2023).
159. Zorpette, G.; Stix, G. Nuclear Waste: The challenge is global. IEEE Spectr. 1990, 27, 18–24. [CrossRef]
160. Kumbhar, S.J.; Jaybhaye, P.K. Nuclear Waste: Introduction to its Management. Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Engin. 2014, 1, 100–104.
161. Schaffer, M.B. Toward a viable nuclear waste disposal program. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1382–1388. [CrossRef]
162. Johnson, B.; Newman, A.; King, J. Optimizing high-level nuclear waste disposal within a deep geologic repository. Ann. Operat.
Res. 2017, 253, 733–755. [CrossRef]
163. Ojovan, M.I.; Steinmetz, H.J. Approaches to Disposal of Nuclear Waste. Energies 2022, 15, 7804. [CrossRef]
164. Geist, A.; Adnet, J.M.; Bourg, S.; Ekberg, C.; Galán, H.; Guilbaud, P.; Taylor, R. An overview of solvent extraction processes
developed in Europe for advanced nuclear fuel recycling, part 1—Heterogeneous recycling. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 1866–1881.
[CrossRef]
165. O’Neill, K. Radioactive “Trade”. SAIS Rev. 2002, 22, 157–168.
166. Hohenemser, C.; Kasperson, R.; Kates, R. The Distrust of Nuclear Power: Nuclear power is assessed hypercritically because of its
unique history, complexity, and safety management. Science 1977, 196, 25–34. [CrossRef]
167. What is Nuclear Waste, and What Do We Do with It? Available online: https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-
nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx (accessed on 12 February 2023).
168. Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel. Available online: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-
recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx (accessed on 12 February 2023).
Energies 2023, 16, 3612 31 of 31

169. Big Plans in the Baltics. Available online: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurebig-plans-in-the-baltics-7864338/

(accessed on 12 February 2023).
170. Latvia Joins the Nuclear Safety and Clean Energy Development Promotion Program Established by the United States. Available
online: https://www.em.gov.lv/en/article/latvia-joins-nuclear-safety-and-clean-energy-development-promotion-programme-
established-united-states?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F (accessed on 12 February 2023).
171. Garribba, M.; Chirtes, A.; Nauduzaite, M. The Directive Establishing a Community Framework for the Nuclear Safety of Nuclear
Installations: The EU Approach to Nuclear Safety. Nucl. Law Bull. 2009, 84, 23. [CrossRef]
172. Nuclear-Powered Carbon Capture and Sequestration. Available online: https://medium.com/climate-conscious/nuclear-
powered-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-2fc9c97e7b5 (accessed on 12 February 2023).
173. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. Available online: https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Integrated_gasification_
combined_cycle (accessed on 12 February 2023).
174. Nuclear–Renewable Hybrid Energy Systems for Decarbonized Energy Production and Cogeneration. Available online:
https://www.iaea.org/publications/13594/nuclear-renewable-hybrid-energy-systems-for-decarbonized-energy-production-
and-cogeneration (accessed on 12 February 2023).
175. DOE to Fund Direct Air Capture Study with Nuclear Power. Available online: https://carbonherald.com/doe-to-fund-direct-air-
capture-study-with-nuclear-power/ (accessed on 12 February 2023).
176. Nuclear Process Heat for Industry. Available online: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-
applications/industry/nuclear-process-heat-for-industry.aspx (accessed on 12 February 2023).
177. Al-Othman, A.; Darwish, N.N.; Qasim, M.; Tawalbeh, M.; Darwish, N.A.; Hilal, N. Nuclear desalination: A state-of-the-art review.
Desalination 2019, 457, 39–61. [CrossRef]
178. Demirbaş, A. Global renewable energy resources. Energy Sources 2006, 28, 779–792. [CrossRef]
179. Feiveson, H.A.; Von Hippel, F.; Williams, R.H. Fission power: An evolutionary strategy. Science 1979, 203, 330–337. [CrossRef]
180. Kim, S.H.; Taiwo, T.A.; Dixon, B.W. The carbon value of nuclear power plant lifetime extensions in the United States. Nucl.
Technol. 2022, 208, 775–793. [CrossRef]
181. Mishnaevsky, L., Jr.; Thomsen, K. Costs of repair of wind turbine blades: Influence of technology aspects. Wind Energy
2020, 23, 2247–2255. [CrossRef]
182. Tazi, N.; Kim, J.; Bouzidi, Y.; Chatelet, E.; Liu, G. Waste and material flow analysis in the end-of-life wind energy system. Res.
Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 145, 199–207. [CrossRef]
183. Rathore, N.; Panwar, N.L. Strategic overview of management of future solar photovoltaic panel waste generation in the Indian
context. Waste Manag. Res. 2022, 40, 504–518. [CrossRef]
184. Ewing, R.C.; Whittleston, R.A.; Yardley, B.W. Geological disposal of nuclear waste: A primer. Elements 2016, 12, 233–237.
[CrossRef]
185. Dincer, F. The analysis on wind energy electricity generation status, potential and policies in the world. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2011, 15, 5135–5142. [CrossRef]
186. Nuclear Electricity. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-electricity (accessed on 12 February 2023).
187. Interactive: How Much of Your Country’s Electricity is Renewable? Available online: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1
/20/interactive-how-much-of-your-countrys-electricity-is-renewable-infographic (accessed on 12 February 2023).
188. Glaser, A. From Brokdorf to Fukushima: The long journey to nuclear phase-out. Bull. Atomic Sci. 2012, 68, 10–21. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.