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 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.

[1]  Arnulf Grubler,et al.  The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing , 2010 .

[2]  D. E. Shropshire Advanced Fuel Cycle Economic Analysis of Symbiotic Light-Water Reactor and Fast Burner Reactor Systems , 2009 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[4]  Lawrence D. Phillips,et al.  Group Elicitation of Probability Distributions: Are Many Heads Better Than One? , 1999 .

[5]  Peter R. Odell,et al.  Dynamics of energy technologies and global change , 1999 .

[6]  Robert J. Goldston Climate Change, Nuclear Power, and Nuclear Proliferation: Magnitude Matters , 2011 .

[7]  Laura Diaz Anadon,et al.  Expert elicitation of cost, performance, and RD&D budgets for coal power with CCS , 2011 .

[8]  M Granger Morgan,et al.  Expert assessments of future photovoltaic technologies. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  Erin Baker,et al.  Carbon capture and storage: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy , 2009 .

[10]  Matthew Bunn,et al.  Enabling a Nuclear RevivalAnd Managing Its Risks , 2009, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization.

[11]  Y A R O M A N,et al.  Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the , 2008 .

[12]  Jeffrey M. Keisler,et al.  Cellulosic biofuels: Expert views on prospects for advancement , 2011 .

[13]  R. Evenson,et al.  International Invention: Implications for Technology Market Analysis , 1984 .

[14]  Stephen C. Hora,et al.  Probability Judgments for Continuous Quantities: Linear Combinations and Calibration , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[15]  Samuel Kortum,et al.  Research, Patenting, and Technological Change , 1997 .

[16]  Nathan E. Hultman,et al.  A reactor-level analysis of busbar costs for US nuclear plants, 1970-2005 , 2007 .

[17]  M Granger Morgan,et al.  Expert judgments about transient climate response to alternative future trajectories of radiative forcing , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems , 1991 .

[19]  Robert E. Evenson,et al.  A Stochastic Model of Applied Research , 1976, Journal of Political Economy.

[20]  John Quigley,et al.  Building prior distributions to support Bayesian reliability growth modelling using expert judgement , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[21]  L. Clarke,et al.  International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios , 2009 .

[22]  P. Segerstrom Endogenous growth without scale effects , 1998 .

[23]  David W. Keith,et al.  When is it appropriate to combine expert judgments? , 1996 .