IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v135y2019ics0301421519306007.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The case for a tortoise approach to US nuclear research and development

Author

Listed:
  • Ford, Michael J.
  • Schrag, Daniel P.

Abstract

The future role of nuclear power in decarbonization of the US electricity grid is uncertain. Large light water plants have proven challenging to deploy, and the existing nuclear fleet is under market pressure. A new cadre of developers, supported by the US Department of Energy, is pressing for an accelerated path to deployment of new nuclear designs to address the climate challenge and maintain the nuclear industrial base. However, an examination of market dynamics and the ongoing pace of low carbon technology transition portend significant challenges for these vendors. Our analysis indicates that the current advanced reactor research and development paradigm is unlikely to yield multiple technology options in a timeframe that matters and argues for a slower and steadier “tortoise” approach. Using an optimization model we demonstrate that a slower, structured approach across a broad portfolio of technologies will better align nuclear development with a possible mid-century market opening. By allowing additional development time, building multiple demonstration plants, and operating these new designs for extended periods, it is more likely that there will be competitive technologies that can meet the future economic and technical requirements for widespread nuclear deployment should the technology be required in decarbonization efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Ford, Michael J. & Schrag, Daniel P., 2019. "The case for a tortoise approach to US nuclear research and development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:135:y:2019:i:c:s0301421519306007
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519306007
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fernandes, Bartolomeu & Cunha, Jorge & Ferreira, Paula, 2011. "The use of real options approach in energy sector investments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4491-4497.
    2. Michael J. Ford & Daniel P. Schrag, 2018. "A tortoise approach for US nuclear research and development," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 810-812, October.
    3. Ford, Michael J. & Abdulla, Ahmed & Morgan, M. Granger & Victor, David G., 2017. "Expert assessments of the state of U.S. advanced fission innovation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 194-200.
    4. Lovering, Jessica R. & Yip, Arthur & Nordhaus, Ted, 2016. "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 371-382.
    5. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gangyang, Zheng & Xianke, Peng & Xiaozhen, Li & Yexi, Kang & Xiangeng, Zhao, 2021. "Research on the standardization strategy of China's nuclear industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    2. Yuan, Mengyao & Tong, Fan & Duan, Lei & Dowling, Jacqueline A. & Davis, Steven J. & Lewis, Nathan S. & Caldeira, Ken, 2020. "Would firm generators facilitate or deter variable renewable energy in a carbon-free electricity system?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    3. Reinhard Haas & Marlene Sayer & Amela Ajanovic & Hans Auer, 2023. "Technological learning: Lessons learned on energy technologies," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), March.
    4. Sanghyun Hong & Barry W. Brook, 2018. "At the crossroads: An uncertain future facing the electricity‐generation sector in South Korea," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(3), pages 522-532, September.
    5. Wiser, Ryan & Millstein, Dev, 2020. "Evaluating the economic return to public wind energy research and development in the United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    6. Sascha Samadi, 2016. "A Review of Factors Influencing the Cost Development of Electricity Generation Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-25, November.
    7. Peter A. Lang, 2017. "Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Elia, A. & Kamidelivand, M. & Rogan, F. & Ó Gallachóir, B., 2021. "Impacts of innovation on renewable energy technology cost reductions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    9. Choi, Donghyun & Kim, Yeong Jae, 2023. "Local and global experience curves for lumpy and granular energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    10. Pringles, Rolando & Olsina, Fernando & Penizzotto, Franco, 2020. "Valuation of defer and relocation options in photovoltaic generation investments by a stochastic simulation-based method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 846-864.
    11. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "No evidence of counteracting policy effects on European solar power invention and diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    12. Kim, Eun-Hwan & Park, Yong-Gi & Roh, Jae Hyung, 2019. "Competitiveness of open-cycle gas turbine and its potential in the future Korean electricity market with high renewable energy mix," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1056-1069.
    13. Shangfeng Han & Baosheng Zhang & Xiaoyang Sun & Song Han & Mikael Höök, 2017. "China’s Energy Transition in the Power and Transport Sectors from a Substitution Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-25, April.
    14. Marin, Giovanni & Vona, Francesco, 2023. "Finance and the reallocation of scientific, engineering and mathematical talent," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    15. Polzin, Friedemann & Sanders, Mark & Serebriakova, Alexandra, 2021. "Finance in global transition scenarios: Mapping investments by technology into finance needs by source," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Sina Atari & Yassine Bakkar & Eunice Omolola Olaniyi & Gunnar Prause, 2019. "Real options analysis of abatement investments for sulphur emission control compliance," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(3), pages 1062-1087, March.
    17. Gawel, Erik & Lehmann, Paul & Purkus, Alexandra & Söderholm, Patrik & Witte, Katherina, 2017. "Rationales for technology-specific RES support and their relevance for German policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 16-26.
    18. Acquah-Andoh, Elijah & Putra, Herdi A. & Ifelebuegu, Augustine O. & Owusu, Andrews, 2019. "Coalbed methane development in Indonesia: Design and economic analysis of upstream petroleum fiscal policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 155-167.
    19. Mo, Jian-Lei & Agnolucci, Paolo & Jiang, Mao-Rong & Fan, Ying, 2016. "The impact of Chinese carbon emission trading scheme (ETS) on low carbon energy (LCE) investment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 271-283.
    20. Barbara Glensk & Christiane Rosen & Reinhard Madlener, 2016. "A Real Options Model for the Disinvestment in Conventional Power Plants," Operations Research Proceedings, in: Marco Lübbecke & Arie Koster & Peter Letmathe & Reinhard Madlener & Britta Peis & Grit Walther (ed.), Operations Research Proceedings 2014, edition 1, pages 173-179, Springer.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:135:y:2019:i:c:s0301421519306007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.