Expert Judgments about RD&D and the Future of Nuclear Energy

Probabilistic estimates of the cost and performance of future nuclear energy systems under different scenarios of government research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) spending were obtained from 30 U.S. and 30 European nuclear technology experts. We used a novel elicitation approach which...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEnvironmental science & technology Vol. 46; no. 21; pp. 11497 - 11504
Main Authors Anadón, Laura D, Bosetti, Valentina, Bunn, Matthew, Catenacci, Michela, Lee, Audrey
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Washington, DC American Chemical Society 06.11.2012
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Probabilistic estimates of the cost and performance of future nuclear energy systems under different scenarios of government research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) spending were obtained from 30 U.S. and 30 European nuclear technology experts. We used a novel elicitation approach which combined individual and group elicitation. With no change from current RD&D funding levels, experts on average expected current (Gen. III/III+) designs to be somewhat more expensive in 2030 than they were in 2010, and they expected the next generation of designs (Gen. IV) to be more expensive still as of 2030. Projected costs of proposed small modular reactors (SMRs) were similar to those of Gen. IV systems. The experts almost unanimously recommended large increases in government support for nuclear RD&D (generally 2–3 times current spending). The majority expected that such RD&D would have only a modest effect on cost, but would improve performance in other areas, such as safety, waste management, and uranium resource utilization. The U.S. and E.U. experts were in relative agreement regarding how government RD&D funds should be allocated, placing particular focus on very high temperature reactors, sodium-cooled fast reactors, fuels and materials, and fuel cycle technologies.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0013-936X
1520-5851
DOI:10.1021/es300612c