Search

Begin New Search Topic Energy Policy Publication Year within 3 Years

71. Comparing Government Financing of Reactor Exports: Considerations for US Policy Makers

Author:
Matt Bowen and Alec Apostoaei
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Decarbonizing the world’s energy supply by 2050 will require financing low-carbon energy projects at a cost of upwards of trillions of dollars. Nuclear energy is one of the few dispatchable low-carbon energy resources, and studies by the International Energy Agency have estimated a possible doubling of nuclear power as part of scenarios for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury. Large, capital-intensive projects such as nuclear power plants can be challenging for some countries to finance, however. As a result, countries wishing to build nuclear reactors look for attractive financing from supplier nations in the form of loans and equity. This report, part of wider work on nuclear energy at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, compares the financing terms offered between 2000 and 2021 by the world’s major exporters of nuclear power plants: Russia, France, the Republic of Korea (ROK), China, and the United States. Russia dominated this period, with 11 reactors connected to power grids in six countries, in part due to the attractive state-backed financing offers it made. At the beginning of 2022, Russia had 13 of its reactors under construction in other countries, more than all other countries’ reactor exports combined. The US government has been actively developing advanced reactor technologies, partly with the intention of exporting them to other countries to help them address their energy and environmental goals. However, for numerous reasons, the US government has not financed a new US reactor export in decades, even though the US Export-Import Bank (EXIM) and the new International Development Financing Corporation (DFC) are capable of supporting exports of this scale. Given the recent absence of US financing, this report analyzes the earlier activities of EXIM related to nuclear energy and their relevance for potentially reviving such financing efforts in the near or medium term. A key factor shaping reactor vendor competitions is a nuclear arrangement by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in which France, the ROK, and the United States are members but China and Russia are not. This arrangement places limitations on OECD members regarding key loan terms for their reactor exports, including minimum interest rates and loan repayment terms, that can put them at a disadvantage compared to state-owned vendors from Russia and China. The arrangement does not restrict equity investments in reactor exports, posing an additional disadvantage for private vendors in the United States as they compete with larger, state-owned vendors in France and the ROK. As other countries develop their civil nuclear energy programs or begin new ones, the US government will need to decide whether it will assist in financing US reactor exports. The federal government has a variety of potential rationales for doing so, including creating jobs, assisting other countries in overcoming their energy and environmental challenges, and limiting Chinese and Russian influence. On the other hand, financing from EXIM or the DFC will come with financial risk, as some individual projects may not have successful outcomes.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Carbon Emissions, Decarbonization, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

72. Electrification on the Path to Net Zero: A Comparison of Studies Examining Opportunities and Barriers in the United States

Author:
Margaret Cook, F. Todd Davidson, and Harrison Fell
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
There is a strong and growing consensus that a simultaneously growing and decarbonizing electricity sector is necessary to meet declining greenhouse gas emissions targets. Rallying cries to “electrify everything” have captured the focus of many headlines and policy forums in recent years. However, there are important questions that remain unanswered about the electrify everything movement, including the technical, social, and political feasibility of the approach, as well as the affordability and equitability of implementation. While reducing emissions is paramount in mitigating the negative impacts of the energy system to the environment and human health, it is also critical that changes to energy infrastructure are both socially and politically acceptable, as well as affordable to help ensure an economically vibrant future. These nuanced dynamics are not easily articulated in public forums regarding the goal to electrify everything. A more detailed assessment of the problem might discover a better path forward. This report, part of the Power Sector and Renewables Research Initiative and Energy Systems Modeling Analytics program at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, in conjunction with IdeaSmiths, examines eight recent major US studies on the topic. Six of the studies focus on strategies and pathways to a net-zero energy system and two assess the value of electrification and expanded transmission networks. This work serves to compare their assumptions and results. The authors’ purpose in analyzing the studies was threefold. First, the report explores the degrees of electrification in the United States that might be needed to achieve net-zero pathways as well as where and how electrification could occur under model assumptions. Second, it examines the relative roles of variable generation resources (e.g., wind and solar), energy storage (both short- and long-duration), and firm low-carbon power (e.g., natural gas with carbon capture, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal) in the energy transition to meet increasing levels of clean electricity demand. Finally, the report examines the barriers that could hinder both increased electrification and decarbonization of the pivotal power sector. By examining and comparing the studies and scenarios within them, the authors were able to identify shared themes resulting in robust insights that can be useful in informing policy makers and guiding other decision-making processes. Broad recommendations across studies include: (1) decarbonizing electricity; (2) electrifying end uses; (3) lowering energy demand; and (4) increasing transmission, distribution, and energy storage infrastructure. Seven major barriers to expanding electrification include challenges around: (1) the pace of transition, (2) technology advancement, (3) infrastructure siting, (4) equipment cost, (5) supply chains, (6) human capital/jobs, and (7) public support. To attain the various decarbonization goals analyzed in these studies, federal, state, and/or local regulators would need to implement an array of policies to accelerate the pace at which clean energy technologies are deployed. While the studies generally do not compare specific policies but rather the least-cost path(s) to achieving certain decarbonization targets, none of their reference scenarios indicate the energy sector will decarbonize fast enough to meet emissions targets without additional policies.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Electricity, Decarbonization, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

73. Deep Borehole Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Next Steps and Applicability to National Programs

Author:
Peter Swift and Andrew Newman
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Deep borehole disposal of high-level radioactive waste has been proposed repeatedly and in multiple countries over the last several decades, but the concept remains unproven in the field. A straightforward research, development, and demonstration test program could provide answers to basic questions about the viability of the concept. This program would involve the construction of two or perhaps more boreholes to test disposal concepts using surrogate, nonradioactive waste. Field tests would focus on the engineering and operational feasibility of deep borehole disposal, the availability of favorable rock types at depth, appropriate designs for waste forms and waste packaging, and the long-term performance of borehole repositories. Because of the scale of the project, it might best be undertaken as an international collaboration, perhaps led by the US Department of Energy but with participation from multiple national programs to ensure it meets a wide range of needs. Mined geologic repositories, which have been the preferred approach for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive wastes for most national programs for many decades, will likely remain the preferred disposal option for countries with large inventories of commercial spent nuclear fuel. If deep borehole disposal can be demonstrated as a viable concept, however, it may be an attractive alternative disposal option for countries with small inventories of materials requiring permanent geologic isolation. For example, national programs with limited amounts of waste from research or medical isotope production reactors may not need to incur the cost of a full-scale mined repository. Other countries may find borehole disposal a useful option for permanently disposing of small quantities of waste that could otherwise pose security risks, including both fissile materials and high-activity sealed radioactive sources used in industrial and medical applications. For programs committed to disposing of large inventories of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in mined repositories, deep boreholes may provide options for prompt disposal of small volumes of specialty wastes that may otherwise have to wait for repository construction. This report reviews the borehole disposal concepts proposed to date, identifies potentially suitable waste forms worldwide, and proposes a field-testing program that could resolve many remaining technical questions and inform future programmatic decisions. The report also summarizes the potential benefits of borehole disposal in terms of public acceptance, cost, and security.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Nuclear Waste, Nuclear Energy, and Borehole
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America