4.7 Article

The future costs of nuclear power using multiple expert elicitations: effects of RD&D and elicitation design

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034020

关键词

nuclear power; uncertainty; returns to RD&D; expert elicitations; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  2. Science, Technology and Public Policy program at the Harvard Kennedy School
  3. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
  4. European Research Council under the European Community [240895, 308481]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [240895] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characterization of the anticipated performance of energy technologies to inform policy decisions increasingly relies on expert elicitation. Knowledge about how elicitation design factors impact the probabilistic estimates emerging from these studies is, however, scarce. We focus on nuclear power, a large-scale low-carbon power option, for which future cost estimates are important for the design of energy policies and climate change mitigation efforts. We use data from three elicitations in the USA and in Europe and assess the role of government research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) investments on expected nuclear costs in 2030. We show that controlling for expert, technology, and design characteristics increases experts' implied public RD&D elasticity of expected costs by 25%. Public sector and industry experts' cost expectations are 14% and 32% higher, respectively than academics. US experts are more optimistic than their EU counterparts, with median expected costs 22% lower. On average, a doubling of public RD&D is expected to result in an 8% cost reduction, but the uncertainty is large. The difference between the 90th and 10th percentile estimates is on average 58% of the experts' median estimates. Public RD&D investments do not affect uncertainty ranges, but US experts are less confident about costs than Europeans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据