Applying risk tolerance and socio-technical dynamics for more realistic energy transition pathways

Abstract Many energy systems models have sought to develop pathways for deep decarbonization of the global energy system. Most often, these pathways minimize system costs or greenhouse gas emissions; with few exceptions, they ignore the constraints imposed by political, social, and economic factors that slow transition processes, making them prone to producing implausible decarbonization pathways. This paper integrates a key socio-technical factor—social acceptance of low-carbon nuclear power—into an energy systems model to illustrate how it alters the optimal energy generation mix. The United States was chosen as the example, but the approach itself is designed to be general and applicable to any region of interest. An empirically grounded risk tolerance model is developed to characterize acceptance of nuclear power and estimate an upper-bound deployment limit for the technology. Illustrative scenarios are presented to improve our understanding of how the socio-technical constraints that exist in the real world can alter deep decarbonization pathways. The cost-optimal generation portfolio to achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 primarily relies on nuclear power. If risk tolerance concerns constrain nuclear deployment to socially acceptable levels, deep decarbonization scenarios are up to 11% more expensive than the reference scenario and require low-carbon options to be available and replace the reduced nuclear share. Results from this novel framework improve our representation of the effect of social acceptance on the adoption and diffusion of energy technologies. They also contribute to a growing literature that seeks to firmly embed the social sciences in climate and energy policy.

[1]  Simon Buckle,et al.  Mitigation of climate change , 2009, The Daunting Climate Change.

[2]  Rebecca Ford,et al.  Reaching a 1.5°C target: socio-technical challenges for a rapid transition to low-carbon electricity systems , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[3]  S. Bolwig,et al.  Climate-friendly but socially rejected energy-transition pathways: The integration of techno-economic and socio-technical approaches in the Nordic-Baltic region , 2020 .

[4]  D. Sornette,et al.  Towards Safer and More Sustainable Ways for Exploiting Nuclear Power , 2020, World Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology.

[5]  F. Creutzig,et al.  The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change , 2017, Nature Energy.

[6]  Paul Upham,et al.  Towards a cross-paradigmatic framework of the social acceptance of energy systems , 2015 .

[7]  John P. Weyant,et al.  The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies , 2014, Climatic Change.

[8]  D. Gattie,et al.  The role of U.S. nuclear power in the 21st century , 2018, The Electricity Journal.

[9]  Alexander L. Davis,et al.  A decision science approach for integrating social science in climate and energy solutions , 2016 .

[10]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges , 2015 .

[11]  S. Ruutu,et al.  Prospects of modelling societal transitions : position paper of an emerging community , 2015 .

[12]  Karoline S. Rogge,et al.  Aligning integrated assessment modelling with socio-technical transition insights: An application to low-carbon energy scenario analysis in Europe , 2020, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[13]  Jochen Markard,et al.  Destined for decline? Examining nuclear energy from a technological innovation systems perspective , 2020 .

[14]  Sonia Yeh,et al.  Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling , 2017 .

[15]  Bjørn Lomborg Impact of Current Climate Proposals , 2016 .

[16]  M. G. Morgan,et al.  US nuclear power: The vanishing low-carbon wedge , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Improved representation of investment decisions in assessments of CO 2 mitigation , 2015 .

[18]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Reassessing the safety of nuclear power , 2016 .

[19]  Gert Jan Kramer,et al.  No quick switch to low-carbon energy , 2009, Nature.

[20]  D. S. Siqueira,et al.  Current perspectives on nuclear energy as a global climate change mitigation option , 2018, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[21]  David Reiner,et al.  Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects , 2016, Nature Energy.

[22]  S. Wheeler,et al.  Is social licence a response to government and market failures? Evidence from the literature , 2020 .

[23]  G. Luderer,et al.  Assessment of wind and solar power in global low-carbon energy scenarios: An introduction , 2017 .

[24]  François Lévêque,et al.  How Fukushima Dai-ichi core meltdown changed the probability of nuclear accidents , 2014 .

[25]  Peta Ashworth,et al.  Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies , 2013 .

[26]  Jesse D. Jenkins,et al.  A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility? , 2015 .

[27]  Brian Ó Gallachóir,et al.  Long‐term energy models: Principles, characteristics, focus, and limitations , 2013 .

[28]  D. Budescu,et al.  Behavioral Science Tools to Strengthen Energy & Environmental Policy , 2017, Behavioral Science & Policy.

[29]  S. Hoedl A Social License for Nuclear Technologies , 2020, Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume IV.

[30]  S. Alameri,et al.  Harmonizing nuclear and renewable energy: Case studies , 2019, International Journal of Energy Research.

[31]  Neil Strachan,et al.  A review of socio-technical energy transition (STET) models , 2015 .

[32]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster , 2013, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[33]  M. Ramana Nuclear power and the public , 2011 .

[34]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  A roadmap for rapid decarbonization , 2017, Science.

[35]  N. Bronfman,et al.  Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources , 2012 .

[36]  Wonjoon Kim,et al.  Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy , 2013 .

[37]  A. Weinberg The maturity and future of nuclear energy , 1976 .

[38]  Benjamin A. Lyons,et al.  Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites , 2019, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[39]  F. J. Rijnsoever,et al.  Public acceptance of energy technologies : The effects of labeling, time, and heterogeneity in a discrete choice experiment , 2015 .

[40]  S. Sorrell,et al.  Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization , 2017, Science.

[41]  Armond Cohen,et al.  China-U.S. cooperation to advance nuclear power , 2016, Science.

[42]  Mark E. Borsuk,et al.  Agent-based modeling of climate policy: An introduction to the ENGAGE multi-level model framework , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[43]  M. Sahakian,et al.  A review of linking models and socio-technical transitions theories for energy and climate solutions , 2020, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions.

[44]  Adam Hawkes,et al.  Energy systems modeling for twenty-first century energy challenges , 2014 .

[45]  John Eyles,et al.  ‘Technical breaches’ and ‘eroding margins of safety’ – Rhetoric and reality of the nuclear industry in Canada , 2012 .

[46]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  Construction Cost Overruns and Electricity Infrastructure: An Unavoidable Risk? , 2014 .

[47]  Jiyong Eom,et al.  Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets , 2015 .

[48]  Mitchell J. Small,et al.  Generating linked technology-socioeconomic scenarios for emerging energy transitions , 2019, Applied Energy.

[49]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: scenario matrix architecture , 2014, Climatic Change.

[50]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions , 2016 .

[51]  David M. Konisky,et al.  Energy infrastructure, NIMBYism, and public opinion: a systematic literature review of three decades of empirical survey literature , 2020, Environmental Research Letters.

[52]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Getting from here to there – energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios , 2014, Climatic Change.

[53]  Seoyong Kim,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model , 2018 .

[54]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept , 2007 .

[55]  S. Kristiansen,et al.  Environmental Debates over Nuclear Energy: Media, Communication, and the Public , 2019, Environmental Communication.

[56]  John Surrey,et al.  Opposition to nuclear power : A review of international experience , 1976 .

[57]  Holly Jean Buck,et al.  Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications , 2016, Climatic Change.

[58]  Carol L. Silva,et al.  Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data , 2019, Energy Policy.

[59]  D. Victor,et al.  Limits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion , 2019, Energy Policy.

[60]  P. Newell,et al.  The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: Towards a new research agenda , 2018, Energy Research & Social Science.

[61]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Climate change, cultural cognition, and media effects: Worldviews drive news selectivity, biased processing, and polarized attitudes , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[62]  Yue Guo,et al.  Government communication effectiveness on local acceptance of nuclear power: Evidence from China , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[63]  J. DeCarolis,et al.  US Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Absence of Federal Climate Policy. , 2018, Environmental science & technology.

[64]  Pushker A Kharecha,et al.  Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[65]  L. Steg,et al.  Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework , 2012 .

[66]  Joseph F. DeCarolis,et al.  Modeling for insight using Tools for Energy Model Optimization and Analysis (Temoa) , 2013 .

[67]  Son Kim,et al.  Nuclear energy response in the EMF27 study , 2014, Climatic Change.

[68]  A. Grubler,et al.  Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence? , 2013, Climatic Change.

[69]  M. Hill,et al.  A wedge or a weight? Critically examining nuclear power’s viability as a low carbon energy source from an intergenerational perspective , 2019, Energy Research & Social Science.

[70]  Mark Z. Jacobson,et al.  How much wind power potential does europe have? Examining european wind power potential with an enhanced socio-technical atlas , 2019, Energy Policy.