Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone

Abstract

This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000-186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO 2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO 2 . Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them. , and thereby more quickly raises living standards and human wellbeing. As the cost of electricity decreases, deployment rate increases. Transition takes place faster and the benefits are delivered sooner.History is replete with examples of one technology replacing another [2,3]. Large infrastructure transitions have commonly taken around a century [10]. Examples are transitions to canals, railways, highways, oil and gas pipelines, telegraph, and electricity grids. Transitions typically follow an S-curve from 0 to 100% complete, with three phases: accelerating to about 20%, near-linear to about 80%, and decelerating to 100% [3,10]. Electricity grids reached 50% of world population in 1960 and 80% in 2010 [11].The transition to nuclear power began in 1954 with the first reactor connected to the grid. Until the 1970s, it was envisaged that nuclear would emulate earlier energy transitions. For example, Wilson [12] projected that nuclear power would supply 14 to 21% of world primary energy by 2000. However, the transition to nuclear reached 4% by 1970, then stalled [3]. The deployment rate of nuclear capacity is currently less than in 1972; the transition has been stalled for 44 years.The rate that technology transitions take place depends, in part, on the technologies being 'fit-for-purpose' and on the learning rates that occur during the transition period. To accelerate the transition to reliable, cheap, clean, safe and comparatively environmentally benign electricity generation, policies need to focus on ways to improve the learning rates and deployment rates of technologies that meet requirements. Historical learning rates provide insight into what rates may be achievable and what could be done to return to rapid rates.The concept of learning rates, or cost e...

The Role of Policy and Module Manufacturing Learning in Industrial Decarbonization by Small Modular Reactors

“…4). The bounding negative and optimistic learning rates of -23 and 24%, respectively, represent historic global conventional NPP learning pre-and post-reversal 29 . These historic rates are a combination of factory and onsite learning, which we disaggregate into separate components.…”

Technological learning: Lessons learned on energy technologies

“…The studies of Lovering et al (2016) and Lang (2017) provide the overnight costs (ONC) of acclaimed 58% of the world's nuclear reactors. The findings have been extensively criticized by Koomey et al (2017), alleging they were cherry-picking data and incorporating deceptive statistics about early reactors, which cannot be verified as the data set is not accessible to readers.…”

“…In contrast, the others require more site‐specific adaptations for each project, making them more expensive. Also, nuclear energy has been widely analyzed (e.g., Berthélemy & Escobar Rangel, 2015; Escobar Rangel & Leveque, 2015; Grubler, 2010; Haas et al, 2019; Lang, 2017; Lovering et al, 2016), which will be further outlined in Section 3. Additional research is conducted on storage technologies such as batteries (e.g., Beuse et al, 2020; Matteson & Williams, 2015a, 2015b; Nykvist & Nilsson, 2015) and power‐to‐gas (Ajanovic & Haas, 2019; Böhm et al, 2019), as well as hydrogen production (Schoots et al, 2008) and fuel cells (Wei et al, 2017).…”

Micro Nuclear Reactors: Potential Replacements for Diesel Gensets within Micro Energy Grids

“…Similarly, the overnight capital cost of MR decreases with lessons learned. The learning rate is the fraction of cost reduction per doubling the cumulative capacity/unit, with the experience gained in the production plant [37]. The relationship between lessons learned and cost reduction of technology can be expressed by the following "one-factor learning curve" equation [38]:…”