arXiv subjects

Alexander Wimmers

Publications and source records attributed to Alexander Wimmers.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Too cheap to meter? A stochastic analysis of projected future fusion costs

In recent years, technological developments and activities by private actors have led a reemerged discussion of the potential of nuclear fusion to meet growing global energy demands. So far, however, fusion technologies remain at comparatively low development levels and their deployment in commercial power plants is probably still decades away. Regardless, over the last decades, many cost studies have been conducted that estimate the future cost of potential fusion power plants. But to date, there is no systematic and harmonized assessment of these projections. Therefore, this study conducts a stochastic analysis of future fusion power plant costs for three distint technology lines, magnetic confinement, inertial confinement, and magneto-inertial confinement fusion, including cost assessments of different technology maturity levels. These levels are further assessed to determine projected learning rates for future fusion costs. For mature technologies, mean LCOE are determined at 114.6, 110.3, and 143.9 USD per MWh for MCF, ICF, and MIF devices, respectively. This implies learning rates of more than 30%. We find that these projected values are rather optimistic when compared to other literature or comparable technologies like fission. We therefore urge policymakers to caution when potential fusion developers refer to the potential economic competitiveness of fusion power plants.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2024

Delays and Deferrals in Nuclear Waste Disposal: A Stochastic Analysis of Funding Shortfalls of Germany's Waste Fund KENFO

Germany is tasked with ensuring the safe and final storage of high-level radioactive waste in a deep geological repository. Since 2022, the ambitious target year of 2031 to identify a suitable location for such a site has been deferred by most public actors. The target year was pushed back by several decades to 2046 or even 2068, consequently delaying the completion of all waste management activities well into the 22nd century. Most radioactive waste management activities in Germany are funded via the external fund KENFO that was initiated with an initial endowment of EUR24.1 bn. in 2017. KENFO hopes to achieve average returns on invest (ROI) of 3.7% over the coming decades to ensure that sufficient funds remain. However, the delays in the current process will likely result in overall cost increases. Thus, in this analysis, we conduct a stochastic analysis of the potential delays in the site selection procedure and their corresponding cost effects to assess whether KENFO's target ROI will suffice for the long-term funding requirements. We find that even under optimistic assumptions, KENFO's ROI would have to be increased to at least 5.91%, up to 6.63%. Alternatively, lump sum injections of up to EUR31.07 bn. as of 2024 could reduce funding shortfall risks. We conclude that in order to minimize the financial burden on future generations, German policymakers must address this issue of potential funding shortfalls proactively, either by reducing costs, via, e.g., delay minimization, or by increasing revenues, via, e.g., capital injections.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2024

Can They Compete? Cost Competitiveness of Non-Light-Water Reactors for Heat and Power Supply in a Decarbonized European Energy System

Recent pledges to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050 suggest a "nuclear renaissance," bolstered by unconventional reactor concepts such as sodium-cooled fast reactors, high-temperature reactors, and molten salt reactors. These technologies claim to address the challenges of today's high-capacity light-water reactors, i.e., cost overruns, delays, and social acceptance, while also offering additional non-electrical applications. However, this analysis reveals that none of these concepts currently meet the prerequisites of affordability, competitiveness, or commercial availability. Our cost analysis reveals optimistic FOAK cost assumptions of 5,623 to 9,511 USD per kW, and NOAK cost projections as low as 1,476 USD per kW. At FOAK cost, the applied energy system model for Europe in 2040 includes no nuclear power capacity, and thus indicates that significant cost reductions would be required for these technologies to contribute to energy system decarbonization. In lower-cost scenarios, reactors capable of producing high and medium temperature heat compete with other technologies and dominate the system once costs fall below 5,000 USD per kW. Electricity shares reach current levels of approx. 20% once costs are reduced to 3,000 USD per kW or less We conclude that, for reactor capacities to increase significantly, a focus on certain technology lines and streamlined regulation in necessary. Further remaining technological challenges, e.g., new waste streams, must be resolved.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2023

Flexible nuclear power and fluctuating renewables? -- A techno-economic analysis for decarbonized energy systems

Many governments are considering constructing new nuclear power plants to support the decarbonization of the energy system. On the one hand, dispatchable nuclear plants can complement fluctuating generation from wind and PV. On the other hand, escalating construction costs and times raise economic concerns. In this paper, we extensively review construction costs and times. On this basis, we apply a detailed multi-vector energy model to analyze the cost-efficient share of nuclear power in fully decarbonized energy systems, i.e., energy systems that do not utilize any fossil fuels. Our analysis finds that even if, reversing the historical trend, overnight construction costs of nuclear half to 4,000 US-$2018 per kW and construction times remain below ten years, the cost-efficient share of nuclear power in European electricity generation is only around 10%. The analysis still omits the social costs of nuclear power, such as the risk of accidents or waste management. Nuclear plants must operate inflexibly and at capacity factors close to 90% to recover their investment costs, implying that operational flexibility-even if technically possible-is not economically viable. As a result, grid infrastructure, flexible demand in multi-energy systems, and storage are more efficient options for integrating fluctuating wind and photovoltaic generation.

eess.SY↗