Fusion: Go Small to Go Fast

This paper presents the business case for small fusion reactors. The conventional view in fusion research is that “economy of scale” means that small reactors are not economically viable compared to their larger counterparts. However, empirical evidence shows how the importance of the “economy of scale” is overrated. Firstly several studies show that large investment projects are usually delivered over budget and late. Large projects (or megaprojects) are more likely to go over budget and larger the project greater the overall risk. On the contrary, small plants are more manageable investments. Firstly, for the same power installed, there is more chance to exploit the advantages from learning and co-siting economies. Since the overall investment is a fraction of a large plant, the overall “bankability” is better and the financing easier. Secondly, small plants are more easily usable for cogeneration and load following. This is becoming a fundamental design criteria for power plants to be delivered after 2030. Lastly, the division of a large investment into smaller investments provides investors with “degrees of freedom” to hedge some of the risks and exploit valuable opportunities. The “Real Options approach” is a mathematical framework able to price these options. In summary, small fusion reactors can represent a more credible and faster route to deployment than large fusion reactors.

[1]  B. Flyvbjerg,et al.  Should We Build More Large Dams? The Actual Costs of Hydropower Megaproject Development , 2014, 1409.0002.

[2]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Open innovation in the power & energy sector: Bringing together government policies, companies’ interests, and academic essence , 2017 .

[3]  Li-Hsing Shih,et al.  Enhancing renewable and sustainable energy development based on an options-based policy evaluation framework: Case study of wind energy technology in Taiwan , 2011 .

[4]  Dong Wook Kim,et al.  Experience curve analysis on South Korean nuclear technology and comparative analysis with South Korean renewable technologies , 2012 .

[5]  Ram B. Gupta Hydrogen Fuel : Production, Transport, and Storage , 2008 .

[6]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Small modular reactors: A comprehensive overview of their economics and strategic aspects , 2014 .

[7]  Paul A. David,et al.  Standardization, diversity and learning: Strategies for the coevolution of technology and industrial capacity , 1996 .

[8]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Large and small baseload power plants: Drivers to define the optimal portfolios , 2011 .

[9]  K. Artto,et al.  A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: Lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects , 2011 .

[10]  Alexander Q. Gilbert,et al.  Risk, innovation, electricity infrastructure and construction cost overruns: Testing six hypotheses , 2014 .

[11]  B. Flyvbjerg,et al.  Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition , 2003 .

[12]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Corruption in Public projects and Megaprojects: There is an elephant in the room! , 2017 .

[13]  Daniel Clery,et al.  UPDATED: Panel backs ITER fusion project’s new schedule, but balks at cost , 2016 .

[14]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Power plants as megaprojects: Using empirics to shape policy, planning, and construction management , 2015 .

[15]  Bent Flyvbjerg,et al.  From Nobel Prize to Project Management: Getting Risks Right , 2006, ArXiv.

[16]  J. Pinto Project management, governance, and the normalization of deviance , 2014 .

[17]  Laila A. El-Guebaly,et al.  Fusion nuclear science facilities and pilot plants based on the spherical tokamak , 2016 .

[18]  B. Flyvbjerg,et al.  Reference Class Forecasting for Hong Kong's Major Roadworks Projects , 2016, 1710.09419.

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

[20]  Peerasit Patanakul,et al.  When narcissism drives project champions: A review and research agenda , 2015 .

[21]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Load following with Small Modular Reactors (SMR): A real options analysis , 2015 .

[22]  Bent Flyvbjerg,et al.  Cost Overruns in Large-Scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Explanations and Their Theoretical Embeddedness , 2010, European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research.

[23]  Kjell B. Zandin,et al.  Maynard's Industrial Engineering Handbook , 2001 .

[24]  Prasad Kodukula,et al.  Project Valuation Using Real Options: A Practitioner's Guide , 2006 .

[25]  G. Locatelli,et al.  Appraisal of small modular nuclear reactors with ‘real options’ valuation , 2017 .

[26]  Sungyeol Choi,et al.  Fourteen lessons learned from the successful nuclear power program of the Republic of Korea , 2009 .

[27]  Graham Winch,et al.  Escalation in major projects: Lessons from the Channel Fixed Link , 2013 .

[28]  M. Schaffer,et al.  Why Compact Tori for Fusion? , 2010 .

[29]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  An international comparative assessment of construction cost overruns for electricity infrastructure , 2014 .

[30]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Small-medium sized nuclear coal and gas power plant: A probabilistic analysis of their financial performances and influence of CO2 cost , 2010 .

[31]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Systems Engineering to improve the governance in complex project environments , 2014 .

[32]  N W Brown,et al.  Nuclear Power, Small Nuclear Technology, and the Role of Technical Innovation: An Assessment , 2001 .

[33]  Paula F. V. Ferreira,et al.  The use of real options approach in energy sector investments , 2011 .

[34]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Investment and risk appraisal in energy storage systems: A real options approach , 2016 .

[35]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Risk management in a mega-project: the Universal EXPO 2015 Case , 2010 .

[36]  Don Steiner,et al.  Nonelectric Applications of Fusion , 2002 .

[37]  B. Flyvbjerg,et al.  Delusion, Deception and Corruption in Major Infrastructure Projects: Causes, Consequences and Cures , 2011 .

[38]  L. C. Fuller,et al.  Cost estimating relationships for nuclear power plant operationa and maintenance , 1987 .

[39]  R. Langlois Modularity in technology and organization , 2002 .