Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Stylized least-cost analysis of flexible nuclear power in deeply decarbonized electricity systems considering wind and solar resources worldwide


New designs of advanced nuclear power plants have been proposed that may allow nuclear power to be less expensive and more flexible than conventional nuclear. It is unclear how and whether such a system would complement variable renewables in decarbonized electricity systems. Here we modelled stylized electricity systems under a least-cost optimization framework taking into account technoeconomic factors only, considering electricity demand and renewable potential in 42 country-level regions. In our model, in moderate decarbonization scenarios, solar and wind can provide less costly electricity when competing against nuclear at near-current US Energy Information Administration (US$6,317 per kilowatt-electric (kWe)) and at US$4,000 kWe−1 cost levels. In contrast, in deeply decarbonized systems (for example, beyond ~80% emissions reduction) and in the absence of low-cost grid-flexibility mechanisms, nuclear can be competitive with solar and wind. High-quality wind resources can make it difficult for nuclear to compete. Thermal heat storage coupled to nuclear power can, in some cases, promote wind and solar.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Schematic diagram showing the configuration of MEM used in central cases.
Fig. 2: Contributions of different technologies to system costs.
Fig. 3: Correlations between nuclear competitiveness and wind quality.
Fig. 4: Daily average and hourly electricity dispatches from different technologies.
Fig. 5: Multiple-year average optimized installed capacities of nuclear reactors and storage.

Data availability

Key model outputs that support the findings of this study are openly available at the following URL: The original model outputs are not deposited online because their total sizes are too large. Please contact the corresponding author for the original model outputs.

Code availability

Both model codes and post-process scripts written in Python are openly available at the following URL:


  1. Kriegler, E. et al. The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Climatic Change 123, 353–367 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Steinberg, D. et al. Electrification and Decarbonization: Exploring US Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Scenarios with Widespread Electrification and Power Sector Decarbonization (2017).

  3. Leibowicz, B. D. et al. Optimal decarbonization pathways for urban residential building energy services. Appl. Energy 230, 1311–1325 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Luderer, G. et al. Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 626–633 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jenkins, J. D., Luke, M. & Thernstrom, S. Getting to zero carbon emissions in the electric power sector. Joule 2, 2498–2510 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019 (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2020).

  7. Gielen, D. et al. The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Rev. 24, 38–50 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Williams, J. H. et al. Carbon‐neutral pathways for the United States. AGU Adv. 2, e2020AV000284 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shaner, M. R., Davis, S. J., Lewis, N. S. & Caldeira, K. Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States. Energy Environ. Sci. 11, 914–925 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sepulveda, N. A., Jenkins, J. D., de Sisternes, F. J. & Lester, R. K. The role of firm low-carbon electricity resources in deep decarbonization of power generation. Joule 2, 2403–2420 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Becker, S., Rodriguez, R. A., Andresen, G. B., Schramm, S. & Greiner, M. Transmission grid extensions during the build-up of a fully renewable pan-European electricity supply. Energy 64, 404–418 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dowling, J. A. et al. Role of long-duration energy storage in variable renewable electricity systems. Joule 4, 1907–1928 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tong, F., Yuan, M., Lewis, N. S., Davis, S. J. & Caldeira, K. Effects of deep reductions in energy storage costs on highly reliable wind and solar electricity systems. iScience 23, 101484 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bird, L. et al. Wind and solar energy curtailment: a review of international experience. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 65, 577–586 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Khttab, K. Nuclear power reactors in the world. Atom Dev. 33, 43–55 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Assumptions to Annual Energy Outlook 2021 (US Energy Information Administration, 2021);

  17. Wiliarty, S. E. Nuclear power in Germany and France. Polity 45, 281–296 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Morgan, M. G., Abdulla, A., Ford, M. J. & Rath, M. US nuclear power: the vanishing low-carbon wedge. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 7184–7189 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (US Department of Energy, 2020);

  20. Exploring the Role of Advanced Nuclear in Future Energy Markets: Economic Drivers, Barriers, and Impacts in the United States (Electric Power Research Institute, 2018).

  21. Lovering, J. R., Yip, A. & Nordhaus, T. Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors. Energy Policy 91, 371–382 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Li, Y. et al. Load shifting of nuclear power plants using cryogenic energy storage technology. Appl. Energy 113, 1710–1716 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Alva, G., Lin, Y. & Fang, G. An overview of thermal energy storage systems. Energy 144, 341–378 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yuan, M. et al. Would firm generators facilitate or deter variable renewable energy in a carbon-free electricity system? Appl. Energy 279, 115789 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nicolosi, M., Mills, A. D. & Wiser, R. H. The Importance of High Temporal Resolution in Modeling Renewable Energy Penetration Scenarios (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2010).

  26. Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation. Standard BAL-502-RF-03 (North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 2017);

  27. Tapia-Ahumada, K. D., Reilly, J., Yuan, M. & Strzepek, K. Deep Decarbonization of the US Electricity Sector: Is There a Role for Nuclear Power? (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, 2019).

  28. Schlömer, S. et al. Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters in IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.)(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  29. Cany, C., Mansilla, C., Mathonnière, G. & da Costa, P. Nuclear power supply: going against the misconceptions. Evidence of nuclear flexibility from the French experience. Energy 151, 289–296 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jenkins, J. D. et al. The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy. Appl. Energy 222, 872–884 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Future of solar photovoltaic. (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2019).

  32. Future of wind. (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2019).

  33. Schmidt, O., Melchior, S., Hawkes, A. & Staffell, I. Projecting the future levelized cost of electricity storage technologies. Joule 3, 81–100 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Steffen, B. Estimating the cost of capital for renewable energy projects. Energy Econ. 88, 104783 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tollefson, J. Can the world kick its fossil-fuel addiction fast enough? Nature 556, 422–425 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bilgili, F., Koçak, E., Bulut, Ü. & Kuşkaya, S. Can biomass energy be an efficient policy tool for sustainable development? Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 71, 830–845 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Moran, E. F., Lopez, M. C., Moore, N., Müller, N. & Hyndman, D. W. Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11891–11898 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Albertus, P., Manser, J. S. & Litzelman, S. Long-duration electricity storage applications, economics, and technologies. Joule 4, 21–32 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bistline, J. E. T. & Blanford, G. J. Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization of the electric power sector. Nat. Commun. 12, 3732 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lund, J. W. & Toth, A. N. Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2020 worldwide review. Geothermics 90, 101915 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sepulveda, N. A., Jenkins, J. D., Edington, A., Mallapragada, D. S. & Lester, R. K. The design space for long-duration energy storage in decarbonized power systems. Nat. Energy 6, 506–516 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Song, X. et al. Review on thermophysical properties and corrosion performance of molten salt in high temperature thermal energy storage. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 474, 052071 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Seetharaman, M., Patwa, K., Saravanan, N. & Gupta, Y. Breaking barriers in deployment of renewable energy. Heliyon 5, e01166 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  44. What Will Advanced Nuclear Power Plants Cost? (Energy Innovation Reform Project, 2017);

  45. Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2019 (Lazard, 2019);

  46. System Advisor Model (SAM) version 2018.11.11 (2018).

  47. Tong, D. et al. Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power worldwide. Nat. Commun. 12, 6146 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Toktarova, A., Gruber, L., Hlusiak, M., Bogdanov, D. & Breyer, C. Long term load projection in high resolution for all countries globally. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 111, 160–181 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Gelaro, R. et al. The modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications, version 2 (MERRA-2). J. Clim. 30, 5419–5454 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bett, P. E. & Thornton, H. E. The climatological relationships between wind and solar energy supply in Britain. Renew. Energy 87, 96–110 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Clack, C. T. M., Alexander, A., Choukulkar, A. & MacDonald, A. E. Demonstrating the effect of vertical and directional shear for resource mapping of wind power: demonstrating the effect of vertical and directional shear for resource mapping of wind power. Wind Energy 19, 1687–1697 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sedaghat, A., Hassanzadeh, A., Jamali, J., Mostafaeipour, A. & Chen, W.-H. Determination of rated wind speed for maximum annual energy production of variable speed wind turbines. Appl. Energy 205, 781–789 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Braun, J. E. & Mitchell, J. C. Solar geometry for fixed and tracking surfaces. Solar Energy 31, 439–444 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Meeus, J. H. Astronomical Algorithms (Willmann-Bell, 1991).

  55. Reindl, D. T., Beckman, W. A. & Duffie, J. A. Diffuse fraction correlations. Solar Energy 45, 1–7 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Huld, T., Gottschalg, R., Beyer, H. G. & Topič, M. Mapping the performance of PV modules, effects of module type and data averaging. Solar Energy 84, 324–338 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pfenninger, S. & Staffell, I. Long-term patterns of European PV output using 30 years of validated hourly reanalysis and satellite data. Energy 114, 1251–1265 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


This work is supported by a gift from Gates Ventures LLC to the Carnegie Institution for Science. We thank D. Tong of Tsinghua University for providing the country-level hourly electricity demand data used in this analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



L.D. conducted simulations and drafted the manuscript. L.D., R.P., L.W. and K.C. contributed to simulation designs, data analysis and editing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lei Duan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare the following competing interests: Robert Petroski is an employee in TerraPower LLC, which is a ‘nuclear innovation company dedicated to developing advanced nuclear reactorsʼ, and Lowell Wood is an employee in Gates Ventures LLC. Bill Gates has invested in TerraPower LLC.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Energy thanks John Bistline, Mark Ho, Vikram Linga and Chenyang Lu for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Note 1, Figs. 1–25 and Tables 1–4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duan, L., Petroski, R., Wood, L. et al. Stylized least-cost analysis of flexible nuclear power in deeply decarbonized electricity systems considering wind and solar resources worldwide. Nat Energy 7, 260–269 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing