Innovation trends in nuclear power generation
May 9th, 2010 by François Lévêque, Ecole des mines de ParisThe number of patents in a given technological field provides a proxy of the strengths and paths of innovation. Using a worldwide database on patents, we gave a quick glance at patterns in innovation in nuclear technology, its relation with specific historical events and oil prices. We also found interesting trends regarding nuclear innovation in Germany, France and China.
This investigation uses the EPO/OECD World Patent Statistical Database (PATSTAT). It provides a quantitative description of the geographic distribution of inventions between 1978 and 2005, as well as their international diffusion on a global scale.
Patent applications related to nuclear technology are identified using the International Patent Classification (IPC) codes, elaborated at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The IPC classes which correspond to nuclear technologies are twofold: ‘Measurement of nuclear or X radiation’ (G01T) and ‘Nuclear physics; nuclear engineering’ (G21).
1. What influences innovation in nuclear technology?
From the first commercial nuclear power plant in the UK in 1956 to the accident of Chernobyl in 1986, nuclear power generation has been booming. Hundreds of nuclear power plants have been built in a dozen of countries. Innovation was also strong: the number of patents has been growing steadily by almost 8% per year from 1978 to 1982 to reach a maximum in 1985. The year of Chernobyl, the number of patents dropped, for the first time.
Figure 1 : Development of innovation in nuclear technology from 1978 to 2005
After 1986, the building of new nuclear reactors nearly stopped and innovation in nuclear technology has kept decreasing. It was especially the case in Asia (i.e., in Japan at this time) wherein the number of patents halved between 1985 and 1994. By contrast and counter-intuitively, during the same period, the number of patents has been slowly increasing in North America. After reaching its worldwide minimum in 1994, innovation has been steady with a slight increase on average.
Without surprise, innovation in nuclear technology is strongly related to oil price. When oil price (Refiner Acquisition Cost of Imported Crude Oil, inflation adjusted) increases, grants and subsidies for nuclear R&D also increase, and consequently the number of patent applications.
Figure 2: Innovation in Nuclear and oil prices shifted
However, more R&D results in more patents with a delay. If one takes the oil price and shifts it by 4 years (see figure 2), one observes that the development of innovation in nuclear technology and the trend in oil prices are strongly correlated (R2=0,77). The maximum (in 1984) and then the drop (until 1990) in innovation follow the variations of oil price 4 years earlier. Then oil prices stayed in the same range of prices between 1986 and 2001, innovation in nuclear technology stayed as much uncertain about its future, with large variations from one year to another.
2. Nuclear electricity generation vs. Clean Tech
Accelerating the development of low-carbon technologies and promoting their global application is a key challenge in stabilizing atmospheric GHG emissions. Consequently, nuclear and renewable technologies are at the core of current discussions surrounding the post-Kyoto era due to their light carbon footprint. How did they respectively develop over the recent past?
Figure 3: Innovation Index Evolution – Nuclear vs. Cleantech
In this part, we use a ratio instead of the number of patents applications in a given technology: the innovation index used in figure 3 is based on the number of yearly patent applications in the given technology divided by the number of yearly patent applications in all technological fields. This index enables us to take into account the explosion of the numbers of patents that have taken place in the US, Japan and the EU whatever the technologies. Note that the vertical scales in the figure are not the same. In fact, there is much more patents in cleantech (biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind, …) than in nuketech.
The comparison of innovation in nuclear technology with cleantech shows clearly that both clean tech and nuclear decreased during the 80’s. However, even though nuclear innovation didn’t stop decreasing, clean tech innovation doubled between 1990 and 2005.
These contrasted trends seem to show a lack of interest for nuclear technology compared with cleantech at least until 2005, the last year PATSTAT data are available.
3. Germany vs. France nuclear energy policy
In Europe, France and Germany have opted for different nuclear power generation policy. France is already building new nuclear power plants whereas in Germany the 2000 agreement with energy companies on the gradual shut down of the country’s nuclear power plants is still in force.
Figure 4: Innovation in nuclear technology – Germany vs. France
Despite this decision, Germany seems to innovate more in nuclear technology than France. It has a better innovation index (as defined as the number of yearly national patent applications in nuclear technology divided by the number of yearly national patent applications in all technological fields) than France. This index enables us to compare the nuclear innovation in each country by taking account the evolution of national patent systems. At first glance, the German energy policy does not seem to have an observable influence on German innovation in nuclear technology.
4. China
China was not a first mover in nuclear power generation. It first reactor was operational in 1991. However, China now has 11 reactors in operation (that is, about 9 GWe) and 20 more under construction. The target is 60 GWe installed by 2020 and 160 GWe by 2030.
Figure 5: Comparison of innovation in nuclear technology and in all technological fields in China
China began to file patents in nuclear technology in 1985 and while the number of patents filed per year is still very low compared to other countries like Japan, it has been increasing exponentially since 2000. Note however, that this trend is not specific to nuclear technology. The number of patents is surging in China for all technologies.
To sum up, the nuclear renaissance has not been yet accompanied with a revival of innovation in nuclear technology. This may be due to the fact that we only observe data until 2005. For instance, the effect of high oil prices from 2006 to 2008 is out of our picture. Another reason might be that the number of patents is a bad proxy to measure innovation in nuclear technology. Patenting requires information disclosure so many inventions relating to ‘Measurement of nuclear or X radiation’ and ‘Nuclear physics; nuclear engineering’ might be better protected with secrecy. Let’s wait for a few years with new data to get a more comprehensive picture.
Fabrice Carrere, Blaise Hamanaka and François Lévêque, Mines ParisTech
May 11th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Government spending on nuclear R&D in the U.S. came to a virtual standstill in the late 1990s and the early part of this decade. The watershed event was cancelation of the IFR at Argonne West.
Not surprisingly, many talented researchers in merchanical, chemical, and electrical engineering searched elsewhere for financial support permanently depleting the ranks of people working on nuclear problems.
Restocking the talent pool will take another decade. Current innovation in the U.S. focuses on small reactors where venture capital funding start-ups are in pursuit of market share. It will be another five years or longer before their products are licensed by the NRC and become available to customers.
Innovation in the nuclear field does not stop or start like a race car. Think hundred car freight train and you’ll have the right visual metaphor.
May 17th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I discussed this with colleagues involved in regulation of nuclear sites. Their comments were as follows:
“This is a very interesting analysis.
My gut feeling is that this analysis, at least to 2005, is broadly correct. But I am not aware of significant innovation in nuclear power that is kept secret.
Worldwide there was not much nuclear build activity between the early 1990s and 2005. Sizewell B in the UK is the UK’s most modern nuclear power station , and it came onstream 15 years ago. The nuclear literature is quite full of work to extend the lives of nuclear plants – economically this is clearly advantageous in terms of getting more from an investment – rather than building new, novel plants. In fact with new build the trend has been to standardise on nuclear plant designs, for reasons of efficiency, and make a virtue of this. The new nuclear designs are called “evolutionary” as they have been slightly modified on earlier ones, eg to increase the number of passive safety features and get more efficient fuel use, rather than being very radically different. There is some development underway but less pure research.
A point we have raised in our nuclear infrastructure work is the need for robust nuclear R and D, and facilities to support it .
On a related topic, last year global medical radioisotope supply reached a crisis because most of the reactors that produce the radioisotopes for medical imaging are ageing (over 40 years old) and some needed long outages for maintenance and repair. These reactors are usually located at nuclear R and D facilities. Interestingly, this year the market is showing signs of response: the younger (in relative terms) isotope production reactors are increasing their capacity and output, and alternative radioisotopes that aren’t sourced from reactors are being used more in medicine.
I think nuclear R and D will be more multinational in future. There is a group called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership which is supporting the development of advanced and innovative nuclear fuel cycle technologies. Started in the USA, UK is a partner with about 30 other countries .”
Ronan Palmer