US nuclear power: The vanishing low-carbon wedge

Abstract

Nuclear power holds the potential to make a significant contribution to decarbonizing the US energy system. Whether it could do so in its current form is a critical question: Existing large light water reactors in the United States are under economic pressure from low natural gas prices, and some have already closed. Moreover, because of their great cost and complexity, it appears most unlikely that any new large plants will be built over the next several decades. While advanced reactor designs are sometimes held up as a potential solution to nuclear power's challenges, our assessment of the advanced fission enterprise suggests that no US design will be commercialized before midcentury. That leaves factory-manufactured, light water small modular reactors (SMRs) as the only option that might be deployed at significant scale in the climate-critical period of the next several decades. We have systematically investigated how a domestic market could develop to support that industry over the next several decades and, in the absence of a dramatic change in the policy environment, have been unable to make a convincing case. Achieving deep decarbonization of the energy system will require a portfolio of every available technology and strategy we can muster. It should be a source of profound concern for all who care about climate change that, for entirely predictable and resolvable reasons, the United States appears set to virtually lose nuclear power, and thus a wedge of reliable and low-carbon energy, over the next few decades.

Public Preferences in a Shifting Energy Future: Comparing Public Views of Eight Energy Sources in North America’s Pacific Northwest

“…We begin by briefly discussing electricity production in both countries (Section 1.1), then cover past research on public energy preferences (Section 1.2), and finally introduce the present research and region of focus (Section 1.3). like the U.S. and Canada [35]. However, nuclear power is highly contentious amongst members of the public [36].…”

A Global Review of PWR Nuclear Power Plants

“…In recent years, countries such as France or the United States have studied the lifetime extension significantly beyond 40 years: specifically, a lifetime extension up to 60 years [64]. The PWR Generation III designs were designed for a life of 60 years [65,66], and the United States is even planning a lifetime extension up to 80 years [67][68][69][70][71].…”

“…According to Figure 19, starting in 2040, the PWR nuclear power plants will notably reduce their electrical capacity. This situation is likely to influence decisions about future investment and operating costs [71], as well as prospects for the decommissioning and management of high-level radioactive waste at current nuclear power plants [72][73][74][75][76][77]. Lastly, if no advances are made in R&D of new designs or in the use of the actual nuclear power plants in cogeneration systems for the production of hydrogen [78,79], in 2050 this technology will decrease its generation capacity to 50%, keeping 127 GWe and the number of operating rectors at 70%.…”

The future of energy: Energy prospects for a budding inter-planetary civilization

“…Existing and experimental (molten salt) ssion reactors could play a signi cant role in replacing carbon-heavy energy sources, but proenvironmental attitudes often overlap with anti-nuclear sentiments [65]. As a result, and in combination with other problems such as large-scale market failures of existing ssion reactors (one of the reasons being that generating electricity from fossil fuels is cheaper) [66], nuclear ssion does not currently have signicant standing as a "cleantech" contribution to climate change mitigation. From a long-term perspective, an unfavorable view of nuclear energy in the context of climate change might mean that technological progress in the areas of nuclear ssion and fusion might come to a halt (for example, due to explicit bans or implicit disincentives).…”