Barriers and Drivers to Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor Technology Case Study of The Netherlands in a European context A Technological Innovation Systems Approach Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of the degree Master of Business Administration of the International Business School of Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen Towards the award of Master in International Business & Management and the award of Master of Arts in International Business Jorrit M. Swaneveld Date: December 2014 Supervisor: Dr. E. Dommerholt Co-Marker: Dr. S. Patnaik Word count: 20.190 Contact Details Author: Jorrit Machiel Swaneveld Hanzehogeschool St. Nr.: 245394 Anglia Ruskin University St. Nr.: 1341625 E-mail: [email protected] Private E-mail: [email protected] Lector supervisor: A. Manickam Thesis Supervisor: Dr. E. Dommerholt Co-Marker: Dr. S. Patnaik II “The main thing wrong with nuclear energy is that an awful lot of people are afraid of nuclear energy, particularly since the accident at Three Mile Island…. I am not exaggerating when I say that our Western society, for reasons that are unclear to me, suffers from massive hysteria…. Once we have overcome that hysteria, we can look forward to a second nuclear era in which we can fully enjoy the not inconsiderable advantages of nuclear energy.” Alvin Weinberg - 1983, p.1052; p.1055; p.1056. III Preface The following thesis on the subject of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technol- ogy is a continuation of the Hanze University of Applied Sciences’ previous research on LFTR, carried out by L. Pool for his BBA Thesis. Technological Innovation Systems theory is applied on an embedded case study of The Netherlands with the intention towards generating a generalisation for the EU context. Please find information on the scope and purpose of this research in the Abstract or the Introduction. This study is commisioned by the International Business School Groningen Lector- ate and supervised by Anu Manickam in this regard. Moreover, Dr. E. Dommerholt functions as the thesis supervisor and first marker. The co-marker of this study is Dr. S. Patnaik from Anglia Ruskin University. The thesis is written in a way that allows educated novices to understand the content of the study. A background in nuclear physics is not required. IV Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors; Dr. Egbert Dommerholt & Ms. Anu Manickam for granting me the opportunity and freedom to explore this topic. Their support, feedback and suggestions have been a valuable contribution to this research. I also have to thank Lucas Pool for introducing me to thorium molten salt reactors. Our discussions on LFTR have been both enjoyable and interesting. I would also like to thank all interview candidates who have consented to be interviewed during this research. Special gratitude goes to Dr. C.A. De Lange for his knowledge on the political climate, which has proven to be invaluable. Also the expertise of the interviewed MSR experts is much appreciated. Finally I would also like to thank my friends, family and anyone else who has supported me throughout the research. Especially Annisa Andhini has my thanks for her emotional support and time to proof read my report. Moreover, I should thank Ayesha Nabila for being my InDesign guru. V Abstract This research is concerned with Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR); a molten salt next generation nuclear technology which utilises thorium as a fuel. LFTR offers many advantages over uranium-fuelled reactors in regards to safety, waste, prolifera- tion resistance, fuel supply and feasibility. According to nuclear experts, the technical challenges of LFTR are not insurmountable. LFTR could play an important role in the energy transition. Despite LFTR’s potential, it is only marginally developed in Europe. There are historical reasons (weapon production and breeding) why uranium was preferred over thorium, but these do not explain why thorium is currently not being developed. So why is a potentially valuable technology not pursued? This thesis explores barriers to LFTR innovation by mapping the technological innovation system (TIS) of this emerging technology. The thesis chooses to focus on the governmental structure in The Netherlands as a case study but with the aim of generalising it to the EU. The study finds that there are barriers within the Technological innovation System (TIS). The first is a lack of awareness and knowledge in both the general public and the government. Moreover, insufficient funding is given to LFTR since Dutch policy is aimed at renewables and not nuclear. The latter is likely related to anti-nuclear sentiments with the people and enforced by NGOs. However, all of these factors are interrelated. There is also an absence of actors for LFTR; no advocacy groups exist and no entrepreneurial activities nor market formation take place. Furthermore, the uranium industry is not concerned with alternative fuels as they risk obsoleting the existing uranium infrastructure. Similar situations likely occur, in varying de- grees, within other EU member states. Despite this knowledge creation drives innovation and creates positive expectations for MSR technology. Research groups can counter the widespread lack of knowledge and awareness by forming an international confederation and lobby group aimed at diffusing scientific knowledge to the public, politicians and NGOs. It is possible that this solutions brings about a science and tech- nology push motor to innovation. This thorium super network should strive to be scientific, independent and can ensure funding for future molten salt reactor research projects. However, generalisation of the findings towards all European nations is difficult due to differ- ent national energy policies. Consequently future research should be done in assessing the TIS in other European countries. Further research aimed at LFTRs feasibility and overcoming technological and social barriers is recommended. VI Table of Contents Definitions and Abbreviations 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Literature Review 10 2.1 Thorium energy and LFTR 11 2.1.1 What is thorium fuelled nuclear power? 11 2.1.2 What is LFTR? 11 2.1.3 The benefits of LFTR 12 2.1.3.1 LFTR efficiency and nuclear waste 12 2.1.3.2 Safety of LFTR 14 2.1.3.3 Availability of Thorium 14 2.1.3.4 Cheaper 15 2.1.3.5 Proliferation 16 2.1.3.6 Medical: The cure for cancer? 17 2.1.4. The Challenges of LFTR 19 2.1.4.1. The molten salt mixture 19 2.1.4.2. Beryllium and lithium 19 2.1.4.3. Start-up fuel 19 2.1.4.4 Cost effectiveness concerns 20 2.1.4.5. MSRE clean-up process 20 2.1.5. Current Developments of LFTR 21 2.2 What is an Innovation System? 23 2.3 What are Technological Innovation Systems? 25 2.3.1 What is included in a TIS 26 2.4 Structures of a Technological Innovation System 28 2.4.1 Actors 28 2.4.2 Institutions 29 2.4.3 Technologies 30 2.4.4 Relationships and Networks 30 2.4.5 System configuration 31 2.5 System Failure 33 2.5.1 Infrastructural failures 33 2.5.2 Institutional failures 33 2.5.3 Hard systems failure 34 2.5.4 Soft systems failure 34 2.5.5 Interaction failures 34 2.5.6 Strong interaction failure 34 2.5.7 Weak network failure 35 2.5.8 Capabilities failures 35 2.5.9 Absence of actors 35 2.6 TIS dynamics 37 2.6.1 Seven system functions 37 2.7 Framework 41 1 | Jorrit Swaneveld 2014 3. Methodology 43 3.1 Methods and research philosophy 43 3.1.1 Case Study Protocol 44 3.2 Interviews 46 3.3 Answering the research questions 48 4. Findings and Discussion 50 4.1 Research centres system slice 53 4.1.1. How are the research centres being funded? 53 4.2 Government system slice 56 4.2.1 Prioritising investment 56 4.2.2 Awareness and knowledge base of the government 57 4.2.3 Who should invest? 57 4.2.4 Self-fulfilling prophecies 58 4.2.5 Scepticism and insufficient knowledge: 59 4.3 The energy market system slice 62 4.4 People & the public opinion system slice 65 4.5 Lobby groups and NGOs system slice 68 4.6 System failures: a summary of the finding 70 4.6.1 Weak network failure 72 4.6.2 Absence of Actors 72 4.6.3 Soft Systems failure (Institutional failure) 72 4.6.4 Infrastructural failure 72 4.6.5 Strong network failure in the uranium industry 72 4.6.6 External barriers & drivers 72 4.6.7 Knowledge as a motor to innovation 73 4.7 Re-exploring TIS theory: prerequisites to innovation 75 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 77 5.1 Recommendations 79 References 81 Appendix I: Moir’s cost analysis of a MSR 87 Appendix II: History - Why MSR’s were forgotten 88 Appendix III: Current MSR experiments 89 Appendix IV: Societal effects of radiophobia 91 Appendix V: Thorium fuel cycle and waste 93 Appendix VI: Five system components explained 95 Appendix VII: Entrepreneurship in TIS Dynamics 96 Appendix VIII: LFTR misconceptions at the NIV 97 Appendix IX: Case study protocol 99 Appendix X: Research planning 105 Appendix XI: Interview protocol 106 2 | Jorrit Swaneveld 2014 Appendix XII: Interviews 108 A: Expert interviews 110 B: NGO interviews 118 C: Political interviews 130 D: Research Groups interviews 148 Appendix XIII: E-mail information and statements 159 List of Figures: Figure 1: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) and LWR 11 Figure 2: Conversion rate 13 Figure 3: Cost estimate of 7 salt reactor proposals 15 Figure 4: MSRE clean-up 20 Figure 5: Innovation System definitions 23 Figure 6: Boundaries of a TIS 26 Figure 7: Five system configuration of a TIS 31 Figure 8: Seven system functions of a TIS 37 Figure 9: Events as indicators of system functions 38 Figure 10: