Thrust 1: Stakeholder, Parameter & Metric Identification

Transcription

1 Thrust 1: Stakeholder, Parameter & Metric Identification Dominique Brossard, Professor and Chair, LSC, UW-Madison Dietram Scheufele, Professor, LSC, UW-Madison Nan Li, Ph.D. student and Research Assistant, LSC, UW-Madison Cyclus Review Meeting, Argonne National Lab, Oct

2 Milestones Completed Content Analysis 2012 Qualitative Interviews 2013 Quantitative Survey Social media analysis* Visualization Experiment *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

3 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

4 What did we find? 4

5 Understanding the audiences Institutional background of the audiences identified through content analysis (N=332) 5

6 Understanding the audiences How long have you worked in a position related to energy? (N=137) 6

7 Understanding the audiences Educational attainment of surveyed stakeholders (N=137) 7

8 Understanding the audiences Fields of the highest degree held by surveyed stakeholders (N=137) 8

9 What are the audiences (primary) concerns related to the nuclear fuel cycle? 9

10 Economics, waste management and non-proliferation are the most common concerns. Frequency of mentions for each thematic area by interviewees (N=18) 10

11 However, the primary concerns may vary across stakeholders. Government Stakeholders Nonprofit 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 11

12 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

13 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 release 14

14 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

15 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

16 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

17 Categorizing the identified parameters by importance and confidence 17

18 Visualizing the parameters of high importance 18

19 Experimental design Waste/Cost Chart Infographic Static Dynamic Static Dynamic MIT(waste) DOE (waste) MIT (waste) DOE (waste) MIT (waste) DOE (waste) MIT (waste) DOE (waste) MIT (cost) DOE (cost) MIT (cost) DOE (cost) MIT (cost) DOE (cost) MIT (cost) DOE (cost) 19

20 Which visual allows its viewers to understand the data most accurately? 20

21 Traditional static charts are not the best option. 6 Mean of graph comprehension (range 0-6) static dynamic 0 chart infographic Experiment results: N=517 21

22 Especially for presenting the cost data, infographics work better than charts. 6 Mean of graph comprehension (range 0-6) chart infographic 0 cost waste Experiment results: N=517 22

23 Also, dynamic visuals work better than the static ones when presenting the cost data. 6 Mean of graph comprehension (range 0-6) static dynamic 0 cost waste Experiment results: N=517 23

24 Which visual allows its users to develop the highest level of confidence in the data? 24

25 The perceived quality of data does not vary across treatment groups. 5 Mean of perceived data quality cost waste 1 Experiment results: N=517 25

26 However, the level of trust in university scientists matters when evaluating the quality of data. 3.6 Estimated marginal means of perceived data quality (range 1-5) Low trust in university scientists High trust in university scientists 3 MIT Data source DOE Experiment results: N=517 26

27 ...and so does the level of trust in federal agencies. 3.6 Estimated marginal means of perceived data quality (range 1-5) Low trust in federal agencies High trust in federal agencies 3 MIT Data source DOE Experiment results: N=517 27

28 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.

29 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.

30 Thank you. 30

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. 31

32 General Environmental and Health Safety Waste Management Costs and Economic Issues Resource Utilization Sustainability Non-proliferation Development time Transportation: 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 longterm 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 4 th 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.)

33 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 weaponsgrade 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 communityspecific 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

34 General Environmental 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

35 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?

36 Appendix 2: Measures for perceived data quality 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.