In the quest to decarbonize the energy sector, Serbia is at a crossroads, and a groundbreaking study led by Sanja Milivojevic from the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Belgrade offers a roadmap for the future. The research, published in Energies, compares the economic viability of large-scale nuclear power plants, small modular reactors (SMRs), and renewable energy sources like wind and solar, coupled with energy storage solutions. The findings could reshape how Serbia and other nations approach their energy mix, balancing economic viability with environmental sustainability.
Serbia’s commitment to the Energy Community Treaty and the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) has set ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions and increasing the share of renewable energy. By 2030, Serbia aims to double its renewable energy share to 40.7% and reduce its carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 40.3% compared to 1990 levels. This transition is not just about meeting regulatory requirements; it’s about future-proofing the energy sector against volatile fossil fuel prices and geopolitical uncertainties.
Milivojevic’s study delves into the net present value (NPV), payback period, and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for three distinct energy projects. The first involves building a large-scale nuclear power plant (LS NPP) with a pressurized water reactor, boasting a net capacity of 1200 MW. The second project proposes deploying four small modular reactors, each with a net capacity of 300 MW. The third project envisions a combination of solar and wind power plants, totaling 3033 MW and 1706 MW respectively, backed by pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES).
The results are compelling. Small modular reactors emerge as the most profitable option, thanks to their sequential construction and earlier revenue generation. “The NPV for the project with four SMRs becomes positive and is greater than the NPV for the project with the LS NPP due to the sequential construction of SMR and earlier revenue from the sale of the electricity,” Milivojevic explains. This makes the investment payback faster, with a payback period ranging from 18 to 37 years, depending on the discount rate and electricity price.
In contrast, the solar and wind power plants, while environmentally friendly, face challenges due to their shorter exploitation lifetime of 25 years and the need for energy storage. “The project with solar and wind power plants and PHES is not cost-effective due to the short projected exploitation lifetime of these plants, which is 25 years, and the need to build new units in the observed period of 60 years,” the study notes. This highlights the trade-offs between renewable energy’s environmental benefits and its economic viability over the long term.
The study also underscores the importance of energy storage. PHES stands out as the most cost-effective and least risky option, aligning with Serbia’s plans to construct the reversible hydropower plant Bistrica. This plant, expected to be completed by 2032, will support 1.5 GW of renewable energy sources, demonstrating a practical approach to integrating intermittent renewable energy into the grid.
The implications of this research are far-reaching. For energy companies, the findings provide a clear economic case for investing in SMRs, which offer a stable and predictable energy supply. For policymakers, the study underscores the need for long-term planning and investment in energy storage to support renewable energy deployment. For consumers, the transition to a decarbonized energy sector promises more stable electricity prices and reduced dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets.
As Serbia navigates its energy transition, Milivojevic’s research offers a blueprint for balancing economic viability with environmental sustainability. The study, published in Energies, provides a comprehensive analysis that could shape future energy policies and investments, not just in Serbia, but globally. As the world seeks to decarbonize, the lessons from Serbia’s journey could illuminate the path forward for other nations grappling with similar challenges. The future of energy is not just about choosing the right technologies; it’s about making economically sound decisions that pave the way for a sustainable and resilient energy sector.
