Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Nuclear fission innovation in the US
Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making Michael J. Ford mjford [at] andrew [dot] cmu [dot] edu Ahmed Abdulla ayabdulla [at] ucsd [dot] edu May 23, 2016 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy 5/23/16
2
Current electricity mix
Excluding biomass and waste, which account for 2% of electricity generation 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
3
EIA projection (wishful thinking!)
Excluding biomass and waste, which account for 2% of electricity generation 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
4
A more likely scenario (closures)
Excluding biomass and waste, which account for 2% of electricity generation 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
5
This scenario: Uses EIA projections regarding: demand change
gas and renewables generation expansion Adopts following closure assumptions: declared shutdown plans operating license expirations up to 2040 no second license renewals (SLRs) – for good reason Includes plants currently under construction Assumes 12 threatened plants stay online Light water reactors face too many challenges Advanced reactors were meant to be deployed now Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy 5/23/16
6
Obstacles to advanced fission research
Technical: Multiple technologies under investigation Large technical capability gaps associated with each Institutional: Inadequate regulatory framework Inequitable incentive structure Infrastructure: Dwindling industrial base Dwindling human capital Political: Poor public perception Reticence in the executive and legislative branches Very little market pull 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
7
DOE has an advanced fission agenda
DOE is charged with promoting advanced fission reactors: literature assumes it has spent close to $40B since 1978 Has an advanced fission research agenda 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
8
Research purpose and methods
We are exploring how well the DOE’s advanced fission R&D spend aligns with its research goals. Where does the money go? How effective has it been? Phase I: Retrospective analysis of U.S. advanced fission R&D Data-driven analysis of DOE and Federal Budget documents, down to individual programs Phase II: Semi-structured interviews Complement data-driven approach, fill data gaps, and craft a revivified research agenda Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy 5/23/16
9
Phase I: Analysis of DOE R&D spend
Data sources: DOE annual Budget Justification docs Approved annual Federal Budgets DOE Required Supplemental Stewardship Information (RSSI) for R&D funding Lab Directed R&D (LDRD) funding docs (2000—2017) (1980—2015) (1998—2015) (2004—2015) Seeking older budget justification, RSSI, and LDRD data from the office of DOE’s Chief Financial Officer Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy 5/23/16
10
Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
Preliminary results Advanced Nuclear Let’s look at DOE’s Required Supplemental Stewardship Information (RSSI) for FY 2014 0.1B Nuclear Energy R&D Budget DOE Budget Nuclear Activities 4B 10B 27B 0.3B 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
11
Phase II: Semi-structured interviews
We are interested in advanced fission only Our focus is exclusively on the U.S. Questions fall into the following sections: State of advanced fission innovation? Objectives of advanced fission research? Problems with DOE’s stewardship? Critical capability gaps that need to be filled? Policies that need changing? Contribution nuclear will make to decarbonziation under different scenarios? 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
12
We are aiming for > 40 experts
6 interviews so far More than 15 confirmed interviews in the next 3 weeks Another 50+ names DOE Office of Nuclear Energy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Congressional staff All three laboratories that work on advanced fission Academia Industry Non-government organizations 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
13
Impressions: 3 industry; 3 academics
State of advanced fission innovation: “stagnant” DOE NE has no focus, no performance criteria for existing projects, and is captive to its labs: Comparisons to Office of Science unflattering Staff have no technical competence Labs have pet projects Utilities and public perception drive research approps. “To fund your project, tout only its safety” If the goal is to develop a new generation of fission reactors, DOE NE is bringing a kayak to a naval battle: Funding: too small to matter, too unfocused to count 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
14
Summary Goal of nuclear energy R&D is safety, not paradigm shift
From 2011 to 2015: DOE Nuclear R&D responsible for military nuclear infrastructure, nonproliferation and nuclear energy Nuclear energy R&D is small; focused on LWRs Nuclear energy R&D dedicated to facilities, admin & pet projects (e.g. fuels with no reactors) Few nuclear energy R&D dollars have been going to advanced reactor concepts $24B 8% 20% 50% 0.4% Not including legacy waste mgmt. ($25B) Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy 5/23/16
15
Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
Our impressions Utilities, industry groups (e.g. NEI) and public have no appetite for advanced fission They drive congressional + executive funding priorities Absence of market pull is actively undermining technological push Advanced fission research lacks an agenda and has become a jobs program that is unlikely to yield results that will matter in the timeframe necessary to help decarbonize the energy sector. ~ End ~ 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
16
Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
The 12 threatened plants Clinton-1, IL Nine Mile Point, 1&2 NY Oyster Creek, NJ Ginna, NY Palisades, MI Pilgrim-1, MA Fort Calhoun, NE Millstone 2&3, CT Indian Point 2&3, NY. 5/23/16 Engineering & Public Policy / School of Global Policy & Strategy
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.