Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Thrust 1: Stakeholder, Parameter & Metric
IdentificationDominique Brossard, Professor and Chair, LSC, UW-Madison
Dietram Scheufele, Professor, LSC, UW-MadisonNan Li, Ph.D. student and Research Assistant, LSC, UW-Madison
Cyclus Review Meeting, Argonne National Lab, Oct. 23 2014 1
Milestones Completed
2012
2012
2013
2014
Content Analysis
QualitativeInterviews
Quantitative Survey
VisualizationExperiment
Social media analysis*
*Li, N., Akin, H., Brossard, D., Su, L. Y-F., Xenos, M. A., & Scheufele, D. A. (under review). Tweeting nuclear: an analysis of online discourse surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Energy Policy. 2
Tasks accomplished
● Systematically identified high-level non-technical policy stakeholders as the target audiences of Cyclus.
● Understood audiences’ concerns regarding the technical and sociopolitical dimensions of the nuclear fuel cycle.○ Identified key parameters and metrics.
● Developed empirically-tested strategies to optimize the visualization environment of Cyclus.
3
What did we find?
4
Understanding the audiences
Institutional background of the audiences identified through content analysis (N=332)
5
Understanding the audiences
“How long have you worked in a position related to energy?” (N=137)
6
Understanding the audiences
Educational attainment of surveyed stakeholders (N=137)
7
Understanding the audiences
Fields of the highest degree held by surveyed stakeholders (N=137)
8
What are the audiences’ (primary) concerns related to the nuclear fuel cycle?
9
Economics, waste management and non-proliferation are the most common concerns.
Frequency of mentions for each thematic area by interviewees (N=18)
10
However, the primary concerns may vary across stakeholders.
Li, N., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013, December). What do government and non-profit stakeholders want to know about nuclear fuel cycles? A semantic network analysis approach. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA), Baltimore, MD
Government Stakeholders Nonprofit Stakeholders
11
Translating audiences’ concerns into parameters and metrics
● Identified the key parameters to be included in Cyclus under these categories:
○ Cost and economic issues
○ Waste management
○ Non-proliferation
○ Environmental and health safety
○ Resource utilization
○ Sustainability
○ General concerns● Narrowed the list down to 18 final items.
12
Finalized items
● Cost and economic issues○ Cost of waste disposal space○ Costs of the entire lifecycle○ Operating costs of different fuel cycles○ Costs of building and maintaining public support○ Impacts on local economies○ Amount of sustained funding needed for different fuel cycles
● Waste management ○ The types of waste associated with different fuel cycles○ The volume of waste produced from different fuel cycles○ The different types of fuels and reactors needed for
reprocessing● Environmental and health safety
○ Probability of accidental release14
Finalized items (cont.)
● Resource utilization
○ Long-term price of carbon
○ Amount of mining needed for different fuel cycles
○ Amount of uranium needed for different fuel cycles● Sustainability
○ Availability of uranium as a resource● General concerns
○ The different impacts of fuel cycles on the entire lifecycle of nuclear energy generation
○ The long-term nature of a nuclear fuel cycle○ Public acceptance○ Attractiveness to utility companies
13
Survey results: Costs/economic issues and waste management are perceived as the most important parameters.
Not at all
Somewhat Very Extremely
Survey question “How important do you think it is for each factor to be included in a nuclear fuel cycle simulator?” (N=47)
15
However, audiences do not have confidence in the information provided by scientists for some high-importance parameters.
None Very little Some Quite a bit A lot
Survey question “How much confidence do you have in the information provided by the simulator for each factor?” (N=47)
16
Categorizing the identified parameters by importance and confidence
17
Visualizing the parameters of high importance
18
Experimental design
Waste/Cost
Chart
Static
MIT(waste)
MIT (cost)
DOE (waste)
DOE (cost)
Dynamic
MIT (waste)
MIT (cost)
DOE (waste)
DOE (cost)
Infographic
Static
MIT (waste)
MIT (cost)
DOE (waste)
DOE (cost)
Dynamic
MIT (waste)
MIT (cost)
DOE (waste)
DOE (cost)
19
Which visual allows its viewers to understand the data most accurately?
20
Traditional static charts are not the best option.
chart infographic0
1
2
3
4
5
6
staticdynamic
Mea
n of
gra
ph c
ompr
ehen
sion
(ran
ge 0
-6)
21Experiment results: N=517
Especially for presenting the cost data, infographics work better than charts.
cost waste0
1
2
3
4
5
6
chartinfographic
Me
an
of
gra
ph
co
mp
reh
en
sio
n (
ran
ge
0-
6)
22Experiment results: N=517
Also, dynamic visuals work better than the static ones when presenting the cost data.
cost waste0
1
2
3
4
5
6
staticdynamic
Mea
n of
gra
ph c
ompr
ehen
sion
(ran
ge 0
-6)
23Experiment results: N=517
Which visual allows its users to develop the highest level of confidence in the data?
24
The perceived quality of data does not vary across treatment groups.
chart
/stati
c/MIT
chart
/stati
c/DOE
chart
/dynam
ic/MIT
chart
/dynam
ic/DOE
info/stati
c/MIT
info/stati
c/DOE
info/dynam
ic/MIT
info/dynam
ic/DOE
1
2
3
4
5
costwaste
Mea
n of
per
ceiv
ed d
ata
qual
ity
25Experiment results: N=517
However, the level of trust in university scientists matters when evaluating the quality of data.
26
MIT DOE3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Low trust in university scientists
High trust in university scientists
Data source
Estim
ated
mar
gina
l mea
ns o
f pe
rcei
ved
data
qua
lity
(rang
e 1-
5)
Experiment results: N=517
...and so does the level of trust in federal agencies.
27
MIT DOE3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Low trust in federal agencies
High trust in federal agencies
Data source
Estim
ated
mar
gina
l mea
ns o
f pe
rcei
ved
data
qua
lity
(rang
e 1-
5)
Experiment results: N=517
Concluding remarks
● For an accurate understanding of data:○ infographics work better than traditional charts;○ dynamic graphs work better than static ones.
● The advantages of infographics and dynamic graphs were more salient when showing the cost data than when showing the waste data.
● Attributing data shown in a graph to an academic source can increase viewers’ confidence in it despite their trust level in different sources.
Moving forward
● Short-term goals: ○ Feedbacks on improved visualization○ Qualitative interviews testing the options○ Another round of visualization experiment
● Beyond the project: ○ Full integration of non-technical stakeholders’ level in Cyclus○ Incorporation of social science data into parameters and
metrics○ Further investigation of visualization options, scenarios etc.
31
Appendix 1: Recommendations for Cyclus mentioned by interviewees
General Environmental and Health Safety
Waste Management Costs and Economic Issues
Resource Utilization Sustainability Non-proliferation
Anything that can help policymakers understand long-term nature of endeavor
Probability of accidental release in different fuel cycles
Waste volume Uncertainty ranges/ costs Uranium availability Aging of fuel and composition over time
Plutonium production
Entire lifecycle impacts Waste streams associated with different fuel cycles
Heavy metal handling capabilities
Entire lifecycle costs: plant and disposal construction, siting, licensing
Amount of uranium needed
If we do look at physical volume, also look at physical volume of other things--transuranic contaminated waste, decommissioning waste (some of which would require long-term storage rather than near-surface burials like low-level waste does)
Vulnerability of materials in different states
Availability of nuclear engineers to work at facilities
Likely dose to humans and environment resulting from spent fuel in different fuel cycles
Amount of interim storage space needed
Operating costs Amount of mining needed/mining reduction
Operating lines of the reactor
Risks of theft and sabotage
Relationships between fuel type, reactor type, waste type (different burn-ups and fuel compositions)
Cost of passive vs. active safety features
Relationship from back end to front end (demonstrating how fuel x leads to less nuclear waste/waste easier to dispose of)
Probability distributions of cost ranges/cost ranges
Raw material use
Where we are now (current number of LWRs, amount of spent fuel). Time to build facilities and amount they can reprocess when it is running
Ways to minimize separation
*Highlighted items were mentioned by more than one interviewee.
GeneralEnvironmental and Health Safety Waste Management Costs and Economic Issues Resource Utilization Sustainability Non-proliferation
Development timeTransportation: proximity to Class A rail line, heavy haul road/rail, sea ports
Different types of waste streams produced Long-term price on carbon
At what point does it become cheaper to recycle than to extract more uranium? Projections of uranium availability, cost of extracting it, demand
Energy efficiency Materials transportation
Institutional complexity (no. of governmental players)
Demonstrate how long-term radiotoxicity decreases as a function of time
High-level waste: not just volume or toxicity reduction. Also a thermal issue
Details about government loan guarantees/government subsidies
Changing climate issues (e.g., level and temperature of water)
Resources needed to keep fuel cycle going
Security maintenance at sites
Long-term changes for the fuel cycle
Probabilistic risk assessment and economic damage done to community in event of accident involving reprocessing facility
Mass flow/Waste flow How much sustained funding is needed
Mimicking site conditions (e.g., Jordan looks to Arizona, which has similar site conditions)
How much C02 it takes to build a nuclear reactor
Amount of national enrichment based on centrifuges
Accurate projections of power production
Mobile radiotoxicity among particular geological characteristics of repositories
Geological qualities needed for repositories
What happens when sustained funding is interrupted
What happens to the reprocessed uranium
Demonstrate which waste streams are problematic from a nonproliferation standpoint
Constituency concerns Will environmentalists raise questions? Chemical costs
Information about structure for reusing RepU in the U.S.
Monitoring/detection of enrichment
Incorporation of 4th generation technology
Criticality issues Cost of electricity use Cost of disposal space
Equilibrium of availability of fissile materials (Only reprocess as much as you can consume.)
General Environmental and Health Safety
Waste Management Costs and Economic Issues
Resource Utilization Sustainability Non-proliferation
Providing policymakers complete picture
Doses to humans and environment from actual operations of the system
Long-term price of carbon/long-term demand of uranium (and associated error bars)
Country-by-country basis of resources/ Security of international market (e.g., where does uranium come from? How much does U.S. have?)
Amount of time from separation to use
Information about which types of fuel cycles go with which reactors
Life-cycle environmental releases
Total capital cost to implement system
Amount of energy production from different fuel cycles
Minimization of weapons-grade material
Equilibrium point Cost of underground reactors (and their safety benefits)
Overall contribution to levelized cost of electricity Amount of chemicals used
Co-location of facilities (e.g., reprocessing and fuel fabrication)
How long it takes before reaching accumulation point in the fuel cycle
Standard occupational exposure numbers
Time value of money while building
Water use Multi-attribute analysis of proliferation risk
Cannot quantify public acceptance in a meaningful way
Systematic way to look at catastrophic events (tsunamis, earthquakes)
Transportation costs Value of energy security How much time and cost to nuclear weapon production
Bottleneck in no. of reactors that can be built internationally
High pressure system vs. no pressure system
Public engagement costs (e.g., bribes for community-specific requests)
How higher energy enrichment levels impact the fuel cycle
How many people with knowledge about nuclear weapons building would a country need in order to build a weapon
Information about thorium fuel cycles
Core damage frequency Should be skeptical of vendor projections
Location for uranium sourcing
Would other countries want this technology if we implement it
GeneralEnvironmental and Health Safety Waste Management
Costs and Economic Issues Resource Utilization Sustainability Non-proliferation
Availability of nuclear power in comparison to other power sources
Information about harm (or lack of harm) from iodine release
Cost of building repositories in different geological contexts
Long-term demand of uranium
Scenario: What it would take to adopt UrexPlus sensibly
Leachability of different waste forms Impact on jobs Land use
Uncertainties ranges in performance
Radiotoxicity of ultimate waste forms
Parameters comparable to other public works projects Electricity use
How long a fuel cycle needs to run
Migration of transuranic content Interest rates
Demand for electricity Capital investment costs
Public acceptance Information on competition between technologies in the marketplace
What energy nuclear supply curve looks like over time
How it provides a stable baseload power at a reasonable cost
Cost per kilowatt hour delivered
Economic motivations of utilities for implementing nuclear power
Decommissioning costs
Costs of sourcing uranium from seawater
Appendix 2: Measures for “graph comprehension”
● “Graph comprehension” was measured by six multiple-choice questions○ What was the cost of wet storage for the NFC1 in 2000? ○ What was the cost of dry storage for the NFC1 in 2000?○ What was the total life cycle cost of the NFC1 in 2000?○ Among the three nuclear fuel cycles, which one cost the most
in 2000?○ Among the three nuclear fuel cycles, which one cost the most
in 2050?○ Among the three nuclear fuel cycles, which one cost the most
in 2100?
● Perceived data quality was measured by the following question:“Thinking about the data that is shown in the graph, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.” (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree)
○ The data are trustworthy.○ The data are produced by a reputable source○ The data are accurate.○ The data are error-free.○ The data are incorrect. (reverse-coded)○ The data are unbiased.○ The data are objective.
Appendix 2: Measures for “perceived data quality”
