Studies in Nuclear Energy: Low Risk and Low Carbon Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering and Public Policy Michael J. Ford B.A. (Chemistry & Biology) - Cornell College of Iowa MSE (Engineering Management) - The Catholic University of America Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA May 2017 Personal Acknowledgments I would like to thank my primary thesis advisors, Granger Morgan (Committee Chair) and Ahmed Abdulla, for the support they have provided over the past three years. Their focus and dedication helped me avoid distractions and ensured my chosen research problems were manageable and meaningful. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Jared Cohon, Paul Fischbeck, and Kate Jackson for their tremendous insights and guidance. It has been an honor to work with all of them, and I look forward to continuing to build research relationships with them in the coming years. A special thank you to Professor Jay Apt for his support both through the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center and in sharing insights and recommendations that have helped guide me in course selection and research focus. Finally, thank you to David Victor of UC, San Diego, a co-author on two of my papers. His policy insights helped ensure our manuscripts were on point and targeted to the proper audience. To my 2014 entering cohort – it has been an honor to get to know each of you and I could not have made it through (especially the first 6 weeks) without assistance from you all. Special thanks to Richard Huntsinger for your friendship, counsel, and importantly – your programming expertise! Many thanks to the EPP admin staff: Patti, Vicki, Barb, Kim, and Adam. Their support was critical in helping someone returning to the academic world after many years away and made the transition and challenges much more manageable. Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to my wife, Noreen. She was a bit quizzical about this choice after a full career as a naval officer but she eventually embraced this new chapter in our lives. I could not have done this without her support and love, and this effort is dedicated to her most of all. Funding Acknowledgement This work was supported in part by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation through grant 12-101167-000-INP; the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making, which is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (SES- 094970); the Sloan Foundation through grant 2016-7281; and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Carnegie Mellon University Yellow Ribbon Program. ii Table of Contents Section Page Title Page i Personal and Funding Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iii List of Figures vi List of Tables vii Abstract viii Chapter 1. 1 1. Research Context 1 2. Dissertation Overview 2 Chapter 1 References 6 Chapter 2. A retrospective analysis of funding and focus in U.S. advanced fission 7 innovation 1. Introduction 7 2. The role of government in innovation 8 3. Placing the Office of Nuclear Energy's budget in context 9 4. Investigating laboratory-directed research and development 15 5. Lifecycle of NE's majpr programmatic initiatives 17 6. Discussion and policy implications 19 Chapter 2 References 22 Chapter 3. Expert assessments of the state of U.S. advanced fission innovation 25 1. Introduction 25 2. Method 25 3. Step 1: Exploring the current state of advanced fission innovation (AFI) 28 4. Step 2: Reflecting on past performance in AFI 31 4.1.The Office of Nuclear Energy 31 4.2. Industry and the wider federal government apparatus 36 4.3. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 37 5. Step 3: Charting a course for AFI 37 5.1. Critical DOE Capability Gaps 37 5.2. Alternative Approaches 38 6. Step 4: Exploring the fate of nuclear fission 39 7. Conclusions and Policy Implications 41 Chapter 2 References 45 Chapter 2 Appendix A - Interview Protocol 47 iii Table of Contents - Continued Section Page Chapter 4. The role of institutions in the assessment of global nuclear deployment 62 readiness Foreword 62 1. Introduction 64 2. Background and Literature Review 66 2.1. Readiness for energy development 66 2.2. Economics and the impact of institutions on development 66 2.3. Data envelopment analysis 67 3. Method 67 3.1. Data sources, variable description and rationale 67 3.1.1. Economic variable correlation with sovereign credit ratings 70 3.2. Method for Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) 70 3.3. DEA Calculations 74 3.4. Improper Linear Model 75 4. Results 76 4.1. Context - SMR Market Size 76 4.2. DEA Assessment 78 4.2.1. Energy and Environment 79 4.2.2. Economics 80 4.2.3. Institutions 82 4.2.4. Combined Assessment 82 4.2.5. Data Assessment 88 4.2.6. Correlation in performance rankings and identifying the frontier 90 4.2.7. Performance trends 92 4.2.8. Linear model results 94 4.2.9. Comparison with prior assessments 95 4.2.10. Examining the floating Small Modular Reactor (fSMR) option 95 5. Discussion and policy implications 97 5.1. The SMR market, carbon mitigation, and institutional impact 97 5.2. Development risk 98 5.3. Future analysis 100 Chapter 4 References 102 Chapter 4 Appendix A. Regression results 107 Chapter 4 Appendix B. Methods 108 Chapter 4 Appendix C. 2002 DEA Results 118 Chapter 4 Appendix D. 2007 DEA Results 121 Chapter 4 Appendix E. 2012 DEA Results 124 Chapter 4 Appendix F. Floating SMR Results 127 Chapter 4 Appendix G. Linear Model Ranking vs. DEA 130 iv Table of Contents - Continued Section Page Chapter 5. Evaluating the cost, safety, and proliferation risks of small floating nuclear 133 reactors Abstract 133 1. Introduction 134 2. A New Model of Nuclear Power Plant Deployment 135 3. Evaluating offshore plants that adhere to the BOOR model. 137 4. Method 140 5. Results and Discussion 146 5.1. Project cost and risk of cost growth 146 5.2. Decommissioning, transmission, and material costs 149 5.3. Accident Risks 151 5.3.1. Atmospheric release compensation and remediation risk 151 5.3.2. Marine accident consequence 154 5.4. Water opportunity benefit 159 5.5. Implications of floating SMRs on nuclear security 160 6. Conclusions and Policy Implications 161 Chapter 5 References 164 Chapter 5 Appendix A. IAEA Plant Siting Criteria 175 Chapter 5 Appendix B. Analytica Model Structure 176 Chapter 6. Conclusions and Policy Implications 192 1. Research Findings 192 1.1. Finding 1 - DOE NE Budget Assessment 192 1.2. Finding 2 - Expert Interviews on the State of Advanced Reactor R&D 193 1.3. Finding 3 - SMR Development Readiness 194 1.4. Finding 4 - The role of institutions in nuclear development readiness 195 1.5. Finding 5 - The BOOR model and potential of floating SMRs 195 2. Summary 196 v List of Figures - Main Body Figures - Chapter 2 Page Figure 2-1. Classical roles of industry and government in innovation 8 Figure 2-2. Calculating the level of funding for advanced reactors. 11 Figure 2-3. Program direction and facility upkeep in DOE’s three energy offices 14 Figure 2-4. Laboratory-directed R&D on advanced reactors in the national labs 16 Figure 2-5. The Office of Nuclear Energy’s major programmatic initiatives. 18 Figure 2-6. Placing the programs funded by NE on the continuum first presented in Figure 1 19 Figures - Chapter 3 Page Figure 3-1. Schematic outline of the topics covered in our interviews 27 Figure 3-2. Ratings of NE’s success 31 Figure 3-3. Expert ranking of factors contributing to NE performance 33 Figure 3-4. Expert assessments of the future of nuclear energy 40 Figures - Chapter 4 Page Figure 4-1. DEA Example Graph for single input and single output case 71 Figure 4-2. DEA assessment of 5 DMUs for three attributes 73 Figure 4-3. Super Efficiency example 74 Figure 4-4. Map of SMR Development Potential. 76 Figure 4-5. Map of low end of SMR development market. 77 Figure 4-6. SMR market when considering energy and environment. 80 Figure 4-7. SMR market when considering economics 81 Figure 4-8. SMR market when considering institutions 82 Figure 4-9. SMR market when considering all variables 83 Figure 4-10. SMR market when considering all variables – sorted by nuclear vs. non-nuclear 84 Figure 4-11. SMR market when considering all variables – sorted by nuclear vs. non-nuclear; 85 Grid size >1000MW Figure 4-12. SMR market when considering all variables – All nuclear nations plus the top 30 86 non-nuclear Figure 4-13. Grid Mix Scenarios 87 Figure 4-14. Grid Mix Scenarios, removing the five reluctant nations 88 Figure 4-15: Input and Output Slack Averages 92 Figure 4-16. Performance Trends for select Nuclear Nations 93 Figure 4-17. Performance Trends – Select Non-nuclear Nations 94 Figures - Chapter 5 Page Figure 5-1. Two examples of our notional floating SMR platform 141 Figure 5-2. An overview of the main page of our Analytica model 143 Figure 5-3. CDF diagrams for commerical development specifications 147 Figure 5-4. CDF diagrams for military development specifications 147 Figure 5-5. Construction cost importance analysis summary 148 Figure 5-6. Transmission cost comparison 151 Figure 5-7. Material cost comparison 151 Figure 5-8. Emergency Planning Zone cost comparison 153 Figure 5-9. EPZ Risk Importance analysis summary 153 Figure 5-10. Marine accident analysis cumulative probability distribution 156 Figure 5-11. Water Opportunity Benefit distribution 159 vi List of Tables - Main Body Tables - Chapter 3 Page Table 3-1.