Economic and Employment Impacts of Small Modular Reactors - SMR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

High Case Domestic EIA Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454 ACESA Basic Case Report #: SR-‐OIAF/2009-‐05 Assumes low emissions technologies including nuclear are developed and deployed on a large scale in a timeframe consistent with CO2 reduction requirements of ACESA legislation. Table 6: High Nuclear Adoption Scenario High Case International IAEA Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2030 2009 Edition IAEA High Case IAEA Report IAEA-‐RDS-‐1/29 Economic crisis overcome in the near future. Past rates of economic growth and electricity demand, especially in the Far East, would essentially resume. Implementation of policies targeted at mitigating climate change. Underlying fundamentals point to continued strong growth in the longer term Other Considerations SMR deployment is assumed to capture a percentage of the forecasted additions to nuclear generating capacity. In each of the third party studies listed above, nuclear growth comes, in part, at the expense of fossil fuel electricity generation. This is primarily due to expected increasing costs for carbon emissions. Each of the studies also assumes that nuclear capacity additions will be GW scale facilities. Since SMRs have generating capacities more comparable to fossil fuel electric plants, particularly natural gas plants, it is reasonable to assume that SMRs may be better suited to capture market share from fossil fuel plants than from traditional GW scale nuclear facilities. In addition, SMR manufacturers may be in a position to fill demand currently met by the natural gas and coal-‐fired power plants if tradeoffs between high initial costs (nuclear) and high carbon emissions (fossil fuel) become more evenly balanced due to environmental policy changes. While environmental policy changes may lead to larger demand and more rapid deployment of SMRs than generally assumed, other factors may hinder SMR deployment. Issues such as spent fuel storage, licensing, public acceptance, and supply chain factors may prove to be significant over the coming years. The specifics of how these issues are resolved are likely to significantly impact the future of small modular nuclear reactors. Each of these is discussed briefly below. The storage of spent fuel is an important one for from both a cost and public acceptance perspective. Domestic firms developing SMR designs address the issue of spent fuel storage by assuming that spent fuel will either be stored on-‐site at the SMR location or off-‐site at a permanent location. The primary 22
enefit of on-‐site storage is that it is the storage method used by all commercial nuclear power facilities currently operating in the U.S. and naturally complement on-‐site refueling. However, on-‐site refueling and spent fuel storage would present potential security challenges for proliferation prevention. On-‐site storage is also considered to be a temporary solution and is practical only for the life of the power plant. Although off-‐site storage has the benefit of improved security over on-‐site storage, long-‐term storage options at secured off-‐site locations are currently non-‐existent in the U.S. Another major issue with significant potential impacts on the future of SMRs in the U.S. concerns the speed at which SMRs are likely to be adopted. Factors such as licensing, public acceptance, and supply chain issues may hinder significant SMR deployment in the future. In terms of licensing, it is important to note that current regulations and licensing procedures were developed with consideration for large scale, light-‐water reactor facilities (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2010). SMR designs do not fit into the current framework partly due to their size, associated technologies such as in-‐vessel instrumentation, and the use of advanced designs (other than light-‐water). Licensing for commercial manufacturing and operation are co procedures with consideration for SMR projects. In addition, the licensing of new SMR facilities is likely to be affected by the degree of public acceptance of nuclear technologies in general. Though the U.S. currently has the highest number of operating nuclear power reactors in the world (IAEA, 2010), growth in the domestic nuclear power industry has stagnated since 1990. While costs have been a factor, segments of the public remain concerned about nuclear waste disposal and, to some extent, safety. Lack of public acceptance toward nuclear energy in general may affect the speed of SMR licensing and deployment in the U.S. Finally, the hiatus in new nuclear power plant construction in the U.S ability to rapidly deploy new nuclear facilities on a large scale. The lack of nuclear construction over recent decades has, to a large degree, forced U.S. nuclear component suppliers to either focus on international markets or exit the nuclear industry (Kenley, et al., 2009). This weakened supply chain position could present a significant challenge for U.S. SMR manufacturers in the event of rapidly increasing demand. Foreign manufacturers may realize an advantage in this regard, allowing them to capture SMR market share from U.S. manufacturers. On the other hand, with respect to domestic manufacturing capabilities, other industrial sectors associated with defense and ship building, as examples, could provide the base needed for factory-‐based SMR production. While the scenarios used here incorporate the effects of market conditions over time, including environmental policy changes, it is important to note that unexpected changes in regulatory policy, licensing procedures, public acceptance, security requirements, and supply chain factors may be significant. As a result, the actual path for the future demand for SMR manufacturing and operation may deviate from the projections derived in this study. 23
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Section 1: Introd
Page 5 and 6: Figure 8.d -‐ Economic Impacts
Page 7 and 8: future energy demand and SMR adopti
Page 9 and 10: operation of SMRs is responsible fo
Page 11 and 12: In addition to the companies and co
Page 13 and 14: halted in the late 1970s due to cos
Page 15 and 16: Large-‐scale, proven commercial
Page 17 and 18: Methodology Forecasted capacity add
Page 19 and 20: Figure 2 Nuclear Generation Capacit
Page 21 and 22: manufacture and deployment in a com
Page 23: Tables 4 6 provide overviews of ea
Page 27 and 28: Figure 6 100 80 60 Projected SMRs M
Page 29 and 30: industry ripples throughout all the
Page 31 and 32: Construction of SMRs. As with the m
Page 33 and 34: The economic impacts reported in th
Page 35 and 36: multiplier effects, yield an estima
Page 37 and 38: Figure 7.c Earnings Economic Impact
Page 39 and 40: Value-‐Added Economic Impacts (
Page 41 and 42: $120 $100 Figure 9.a (Manufacturing
Page 43 and 44: Billions $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $
Page 45 and 46: Figure 10.d Jobs Economic Impacts i
Page 47 and 48: Finally, this study did not address
Page 49 and 50: Energy Information Administration.
Page 51 and 52: Sanders, T. (2009, December 15). Te
Page 53 and 54: Appendix A, continued: High Nuclear
Page 55 and 56: Appendix B, continued: 2021 2030 S
Page 57 and 58: Appendix D: Projected Economic Impa

Economic and Employment Impacts of Small Modular Reactors - SMR

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?