A retrospective analysis of funding and focus in US advanced fission innovation

Abstract

Deep decarbonization of the global energy system will require large investments in energy innovation and the deployment of new technologies. While many studies have focused on the expenditure that will be needed, here we focus on how government has spent public sector resources on innovation for a key carbon-free technology: advanced nuclear. We focus on nuclear power because it has been contributing almost 20% of total US electric generation, and because the US program in this area has historically been the world's leading effort. Using extensive data acquired through the Freedom of Information Act, we reconstruct the budget history of the Department of Energy's program to develop advanced, non-light water nuclear reactors. Our analysis shows that-despite spending $2 billion since the late 1990s-no advanced design is ready for deployment. Even if the program had been well designed, it still would have been insufficient to demonstrate even one non-light water technology. It has violated much of the wisdom about the effective execution of innovative programs: annual funding varies fourfold, priorities are ephemeral, incumbent technologies and fuels are prized over innovation, and infrastructure spending consumes half the budget. Absent substantial changes, the possibility of US-designed advanced reactors playing a role in decarbonization by mid-century is low.

US nuclear power: The vanishing low-carbon wedge

“…Our analysis suggests that in order for advanced nuclear technologies to play a role in deep decarbonization over the next several decades, more competent stewardship of nuclear innovation, substantially greater appropriations, and a change in energy markets, all very heavy lifts, will be required (23,24).…”

“…In fact, its current vision is for at least two of these designs to be ready for commercial deployment by the early 2030s; in other words, they would have reached "technical maturity, demonstrated safety and economic benefits, and completed licensing reviews by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission" (22). Using budget data acquired through the Freedom of Information Act and semistructured interviews with 30 senior nuclear energy experts, we recently analyzed the DOE's efforts to commercialize advanced reactor designs (23,24). NE has spent $2 billion on this effort since the late 1990s, with very little to show for it.…”

“…Moreover, NE's spending portfolio conflicts with much of the wisdom regarding the execution of innovative research and development programs: Annual funding varies fourfold, priorities are erratic, and spending on existing infrastructure (some of which is obsolete or ill-suited to support testing of new designs) consumes more than half of the budget. Moreover, the funds dedicated to advanced reactors have been spread across a number of different designs and fuel types, not because a conscious choice has been made to further these technologies based on their technical, economic, and institutional benefits but because they are the favored projects of different national laboratories (23,24). In interviews with leaders across the enterprise, those associated with the DOE and the national laboratories expressed either alarm or despair at the trajectory of advanced fission innovation in the United States (24).…”

“…Because the United States will probably not build any new large LWRs, and there is no practical way to bring advanced reactor designs to achieve widespread commercial viability in the United States in less than several decades (23,24,37), we have argued that only factory-manufactured SMRs could contribute a significant new nuclear carbon-free wedge on that time scale. For that to happen, several hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies would be needed to support their development and deployment over the next several decades, since present competitive energy markets will not induce their development and adoption.…”

Expert assessments of the state of U.S. advanced fission innovation

“…In a recent analysis of NE's budget expenditures over the past two decades, we found that it lacks both the funding levels and programmatic focus to execute its non-light water reactor mission (Abdulla, et al, 2017). NE's difficulties in fulfilling its role highlight a fundamental challenge to major transitions in the energy system.…”