The document summarizes the economics of nuclear power. It states that nuclear power is cost competitive with other electricity sources except where fossil fuels are very cheap. While capital costs for nuclear plants are higher than coal, fuel costs are a smaller portion of total costs for nuclear. New nuclear plants have even lower fuel costs as a portion of total costs. The document also discusses factors like uranium prices, operation and maintenance costs, decommissioning costs, and levelized costs that impact the relative economics of different electricity sources.
Michael Kotara, CPS Energy - Speaker at the marcus evans Generation Summit 2012 held in San Antonio, TX, delivered his presentation entitled Moving towards a More Sustainable and Secure Energy Future
Bunaken Island | Nov-15 | Renewable and island energy activitiesSmart Villages
By Rizki Asikin
Off-grid electrification for development of small islands represents a number of unique challenges under the broad category of rural electrification. Small, off-grid island communities are particularly vulnerable to diesel price fluctuations and natural disasters, and thus, enhancing resilience through more sustainable and cheaper energy technologies should be a key priority. Financing the transition to these technologies – usually photovoltaic, micro-hydro or sometimes wind – is an essential hurdle to overcome. Once electricity systems are in place it is equally important that they are sustained in the longer term with effective arrangements for operation and maintenance, cost recovery etc. Related to this, is the productive use of the energy provided to increase islander incomes.
The workshop on Bunaken Island, Sulawesi, Indonesia from 3 to 5 November 2015, organised by the Smart Villages Initiative in collaboration with Kopernik, will explore these issues and develop recommendations for policy makers, development agencies and other stakeholders in energy provision to island communities.
More info: http://e4sv.org/events/off-grid-islands-electricity-workshop/
AREVA, business & strategy overview - April 2009 - Appendix1AREVA
1. Worldwide demand for electricity is projected to double by 2030, increasing the need for power generation.
2. Nuclear power generation does not emit greenhouse gases and has low and stable generation costs, making it a critical part of the solution for meeting future energy needs.
3. Nuclear power has reliable operations and limited fuel price fluctuations due to low dependency on fuel costs compared to other generation sources.
Intervenant: Maciej chorowski
thèmes: Polish Power Generation system, Optimal „Energy Mix” for Poland
Présentation lors d’une table ronde sur les perspectives de plusieurs pays à la convention SFEN du 4 avril 2013. Retrouvez la vidéo de la conférence à la fin de la présentation ou sur youtube.
http://youtu.be/cYHsgsRGTGM
Want to learn more? Read our Power and Energy Primer:
http://mncee.org/Innovation-Exchange/Resources/Power-and-Energy-Primer/?utm_source=slideshare&utm_medium=slideshare&utm_campaign=slideshare
Toolkit English Final Low Carbon LifestyleJanak Shah
This document provides a trainer's guide to promoting low carbon lifestyles. It aims to educate individuals on small changes they can make in their everyday lives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money. The guide offers practical tips people can adopt related to appliances, transport, paper, water, and other areas. It includes data on India and estimates the carbon dioxide and cost savings from individual actions. The goal is for millions of individuals making positive lifestyle changes to significantly contribute to a more sustainable environment and economy.
The document outlines a plan to transition the US to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) powered by renewable energy in order to eliminate dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The key steps are: 1) Transition to PHEVs which use electricity for commuting and liquid fuels for long trips; 2) Build out wind power which could provide 8 quadrillion BTUs and offset half the oil used by PHEVs; 3) Develop cellulosic biofuels which could provide 13 quadrillion BTUs to power vehicles and offset most remaining oil; 4) Add 500 gigawatts of solar power which along with wind could meet all new electricity needs while avoiding new CO2 emissions. The transition could be
SNG, or synthetic natural gas, can be produced from wood through gasification and methanization processes. It can be used in existing natural gas infrastructure for applications like heating, power generation, and transportation. Producing SNG provides an energy efficient way to utilize biomass with up to 90% efficiency when combined with cogeneration. Both allothermal and autothermal gasification processes are discussed as methods to produce SNG. Markets for SNG include heating, power generation, vehicles like buses, trucks and ferries. The document discusses challenges and opportunities for SNG to provide renewable energy and reduce emissions through utilization of existing natural gas infrastructure and systems.
Michael Kotara, CPS Energy - Speaker at the marcus evans Generation Summit 2012 held in San Antonio, TX, delivered his presentation entitled Moving towards a More Sustainable and Secure Energy Future
Bunaken Island | Nov-15 | Renewable and island energy activitiesSmart Villages
By Rizki Asikin
Off-grid electrification for development of small islands represents a number of unique challenges under the broad category of rural electrification. Small, off-grid island communities are particularly vulnerable to diesel price fluctuations and natural disasters, and thus, enhancing resilience through more sustainable and cheaper energy technologies should be a key priority. Financing the transition to these technologies – usually photovoltaic, micro-hydro or sometimes wind – is an essential hurdle to overcome. Once electricity systems are in place it is equally important that they are sustained in the longer term with effective arrangements for operation and maintenance, cost recovery etc. Related to this, is the productive use of the energy provided to increase islander incomes.
The workshop on Bunaken Island, Sulawesi, Indonesia from 3 to 5 November 2015, organised by the Smart Villages Initiative in collaboration with Kopernik, will explore these issues and develop recommendations for policy makers, development agencies and other stakeholders in energy provision to island communities.
More info: http://e4sv.org/events/off-grid-islands-electricity-workshop/
AREVA, business & strategy overview - April 2009 - Appendix1AREVA
1. Worldwide demand for electricity is projected to double by 2030, increasing the need for power generation.
2. Nuclear power generation does not emit greenhouse gases and has low and stable generation costs, making it a critical part of the solution for meeting future energy needs.
3. Nuclear power has reliable operations and limited fuel price fluctuations due to low dependency on fuel costs compared to other generation sources.
Intervenant: Maciej chorowski
thèmes: Polish Power Generation system, Optimal „Energy Mix” for Poland
Présentation lors d’une table ronde sur les perspectives de plusieurs pays à la convention SFEN du 4 avril 2013. Retrouvez la vidéo de la conférence à la fin de la présentation ou sur youtube.
http://youtu.be/cYHsgsRGTGM
Want to learn more? Read our Power and Energy Primer:
http://mncee.org/Innovation-Exchange/Resources/Power-and-Energy-Primer/?utm_source=slideshare&utm_medium=slideshare&utm_campaign=slideshare
Toolkit English Final Low Carbon LifestyleJanak Shah
This document provides a trainer's guide to promoting low carbon lifestyles. It aims to educate individuals on small changes they can make in their everyday lives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money. The guide offers practical tips people can adopt related to appliances, transport, paper, water, and other areas. It includes data on India and estimates the carbon dioxide and cost savings from individual actions. The goal is for millions of individuals making positive lifestyle changes to significantly contribute to a more sustainable environment and economy.
The document outlines a plan to transition the US to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) powered by renewable energy in order to eliminate dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The key steps are: 1) Transition to PHEVs which use electricity for commuting and liquid fuels for long trips; 2) Build out wind power which could provide 8 quadrillion BTUs and offset half the oil used by PHEVs; 3) Develop cellulosic biofuels which could provide 13 quadrillion BTUs to power vehicles and offset most remaining oil; 4) Add 500 gigawatts of solar power which along with wind could meet all new electricity needs while avoiding new CO2 emissions. The transition could be
SNG, or synthetic natural gas, can be produced from wood through gasification and methanization processes. It can be used in existing natural gas infrastructure for applications like heating, power generation, and transportation. Producing SNG provides an energy efficient way to utilize biomass with up to 90% efficiency when combined with cogeneration. Both allothermal and autothermal gasification processes are discussed as methods to produce SNG. Markets for SNG include heating, power generation, vehicles like buses, trucks and ferries. The document discusses challenges and opportunities for SNG to provide renewable energy and reduce emissions through utilization of existing natural gas infrastructure and systems.
The document is a thesis submitted by Ubong S. Simon for a Master's degree that analyzes the natural gas potential of Nigeria and develops future energy supply plans for Ghana and Nigeria. It examines the current energy resources, supply, demand, and infrastructure of both countries. The thesis establishes energy demand scenarios through 2020 and proposes plans to increase Nigeria's domestic energy supply, particularly through developing its natural gas resources and constructing additional power generation capacity. The plans aim to meet Nigeria's growing energy needs in a sustainable manner while addressing related economic, environmental, and policy implications.
The UK has outstanding possibilities of contributing to climate change (CC)
through wind renewable energy technology (RET). Further development is expected from
geothermal source heat pumps (GSHP), biomass, hydroelectric and passive solar design`RETs. The UK has a limited quantity of resource for solar power. Hydrogen RET
possibilities are still unknown.
Ashton Green (AG) and London are examples of rural and urban developments
respectively renewable energy (RE) developments. Both approaches depend on the availability of resources in-site. AG approach bears the economics more than London, which targets to be in the vanguard of RETs development.
Technology has evolved significantly since AG project was started. This can lead to
a review of the technologies to be implemented. London, on its side, may consider the possibility of settling an Energy Service Company (ESCO) to serve the city as energy service provider.
The document summarizes information from a meeting about green energy initiatives in the UK. It discusses the following:
1. 22 organizations signed agreements to become Green Deal providers, with only 3 approved to offer Energy Company Obligation (ECO) schemes.
2. A new Green Deal Provider Guide was published along with a list of all approved providers. An energy advice line was also opened to provide information.
3. Details were given on the Renewable Heat Incentive program and numbers of vouchers issued in the southwest region under Phase 1. Phase 2 was set to begin in May 2012.
4. Two projects in the southwest were evaluating how low-income households could benefit from Green Deal and E
1.3. menghitung penghematan energi hseckhoiril anwar
Materi ToT Home and School Energy Efficiency Champion (HSEEC) 2014.
1. Pengenalan Efisiensi Energi:
- menghitung penghematan energi hsec
Download File Microsoft PowerPoint: http://adf.ly/ruB7V
I 6 diversification of res in norway, tommy olsen, tronderenergiInnovation Norway
Norway has abundant renewable energy resources including hydropower and wind power. Hydropower currently provides almost all of Norway's electricity and offers flexibility. Norway has significant untapped potential for onshore and offshore wind power development. TrønderEnergi, a Norwegian energy company, produces over 1,800 GWh of hydropower annually and is increasing its focus on other renewables like onshore and offshore wind through partnerships and investments. These actions help Norway meet its renewable energy and emissions reduction goals while also creating new industrial opportunities.
Mrs. J. Smith
Date: 28th April 2009
Property: 9 Westbourne Drive, Guiseley, Leeds, LS20 8DB
___________________________________________________________________
1. ROADS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
1.1 Is the property served by a public right of way?
No.
1.2 Is the property served by a proposed new road or alteration of an existing road?
No.
1.3 Is the property served by a private right of way?
No.
1.4 Is there a right of access over or through the property?
No.
1.5 Is the property subject to any public
1) Fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas are non-renewable energy sources that were formed from the remains of ancient plants and animals. They release pollution and greenhouse gases when burned.
2) Renewable energy sources like solar, wind, tidal, and hydroelectric power do not cause pollution or contribute to global warming.
3) Most energy resources, including fossil fuels, food, and biomass originally received their energy from the sun. Reducing fossil fuel usage helps make our supplies last longer and reduce global warming.
Laurus Energy aims to build one of the largest energy companies in North America by unlocking a vast indigenous coal resource using new underground coal gasification technology. This technology can produce synthetic natural gas and other products at a fraction of current oil and gas prices from coal that cannot otherwise be accessed. Laurus has leased over 2 billion metric tons of coal in Alberta and plans to commence a calibration burn within 6 months to demonstrate the technology and establish off-take agreements. The goal is to solve energy problems, build a large reserves base, and create the next great North American energy company.
Lightbridge Corporation is developing advanced nuclear fuel designs to improve reactor safety and economics. Their metallic fuel designs can be used in existing reactors to enable power uprates of 10% or higher without requiring changes to the reactors or refueling schedules. This increases reactor output while enhancing safety features such as lower operating temperatures and faster cooldown in accident scenarios. Lightbridge fuel is targeting initial commercialization in large US reactors starting in the early 2020s. It has the potential to generate hundreds of millions of dollars per year in royalty fees for Lightbridge if it captures a significant portion of the global reactor market.
The document discusses spent nuclear fuel disposition and its impact on the viability of nuclear energy. It summarizes the results of an energy system modeling analysis that examines strategies for minimizing spent nuclear fuel stockpiles within statutory limits, including the use of reprocessing and advanced nuclear technologies. The analysis finds that limiting permanent disposal capacity requires technologies that close the fuel cycle such as high-temperature gas-cooled reactors.
This presentation was given as part of the CCS Ready workshop which was held in association with the 6th Asia Clean Energy Forum (20 – 24 June, Manila)
The workshop discussed the range of measures and best practices that can be implemented to prompt the design, permitting and construction of CCS projects when designing or building a new fossil fuelled energy or industrial plant.
The workshop hosted participants of the Asian Development Banks’ Regional Technical Assistance Program who updated the group on the outcomes of their individual projects.
This presentation provides an update on the current project being undertaken under the Asian Development Bank’s Regional Technical Assistance Program which aims to conduct an analysis of the potential for CCS, culminating in a road map for a CCS demonstration project in Indonesia.
Lightbridge is developing advanced nuclear fuel designs to improve reactor safety and economics. Their metallic fuel is designed to enable higher power output, longer fuel cycles, and improved safety in existing and new reactors. Initial testing of Lightbridge fuel is planned for 2023, with commercial production expected in 2025. The fuel is projected to generate significant revenue from royalties and help meet growing global energy demand and climate goals in a cost-effective way.
Indonesia has achieved strong GDP growth through robust infrastructure development and governance. Electricity demand is expected to nearly double by 2021 due to economic expansion. The government aims to increase electrification nationwide and coal's share in the energy mix to capitalize on domestic coal reserves. New regulations encourage private sector participation in generation to meet rising demand and close supply gaps between regions such as Java-Bali and outer islands.
Energy is one of the most important factors for a developing country like Bangladesh. Like the rest of the
countries of the world, the demand for energy is increasing day by day in our country. Energy sector of
Bangladesh is exceedingly depended on the limited gas reserve. Given the rising demand for fuel it will be
very difficult t to meat this demand with only indigenous natural gas. About 80% of the power generation in
the country is now gas based. Therefore diversification of fuel has become indispensible it has been
envision 2021 that 53% of the power generation will be coal based by year 2021. The worldwide scenario
shows that, Coal is the ultimate fuel for future. Bangladesh is very lucky that it has got significant but
almost untapped high quality coal resource. Five coal fields in the country contain 3.3 billion metric tons
coal. Recently rate of coal production from Barapukuria are increased significantly due to application of
modern coal extracting method, LTCC. Coal to Synthesis gas conversion, is an emerging technology to
wide the application area of coal and commercially proved technology worldwide. The paper gives an
overview of the current state of coal scenario and natural gas scenario in Bangladesh. Here we discuss the
principles of coal to syngas conversion technology and aside from a brief introduction to 5 process
methods for conversion of coal to Synthesis Natural Gas (SNG). The Steam-Oxygen Gasification,
Hydrogasification, Catalytic Steam Gasification, Underground Steam-Oxygen Gasification, Underground
Hydrogasification processes are discussed with the help of process flow diagram. This paper also
summaries the present scenario of Syngas production worldwide. Finally we propose a coal based syngas
infrastructure, where coal is converted to syngas, then processed to make Synthesis Natural Gas (SNG),
then it transmitted via dedicated pipeline or injected into existing natural gas pipeline to the different types
of user like Household, Thermal Power Plant, Brick Field, Ceramics & Glass Industry and any kind of
thermal process industry. This proposed technology is design to reduce the dependency on natural gas.
Lifetime Evaluation of Electric Vehicles and Gasoline Vehicles Fuel SourcesBing Huang
The document compares the lifetime carbon emissions and energy consumption of electric vehicles (EVs) and gasoline vehicles (GVs). It analyzes the full lifecycle for both, including production of fuel/batteries as well as vehicle operation. For GVs, it examines the energy and emissions from oil extraction, transport, refining and fuel delivery. It finds the total lifetime emissions for a GV are 83,465 kg of CO2 and energy used is 56,049 kWh. For EVs, it looks at emissions from battery material extraction, transport and manufacturing. The document aims to conduct a fair comparison of the full lifecycles of EVs and GVs.
The document compares various alternative fuels to gasoline across multiple properties. It provides information on the chemical structure, fuel material/feedstocks, energy content and gasoline gallon equivalents of fuels like biodiesel, propane, compressed natural gas, ethanol and hydrogen. The document also discusses factors like maintenance issues, energy security impacts and references for further information on various fuel properties.
This powerpoint presentation discusses fossil fuels and energy usage around the world. It explores what fossil fuels are, how they are used differently worldwide, and provides data on energy consumption in various countries. The main sources of energy discussed are oil, gas, and coal, which are non-renewable fossil fuels derived from ancient organic remains. The presentation examines how fossil fuels are used for electricity, heating homes and making goods, and fuel for transportation. Country-level data shows energy usage varies significantly, with Australia, France, the UK and USA using the most, and Bangladesh, Kenya and India using the least.
I 3 practical implementation of clean coal technologies j pacyna niluInnovation Norway
The document discusses making coal combustion more environmentally friendly through various technologies and approaches. It notes that world energy demand is increasing significantly and coal accounts for over a third of that rise. Technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and highly efficient combustion can reduce emissions from coal. Implementing pre-combustion, post-combustion and co-control technologies along with CCS in new power stations could help control pollutants like mercury and make coal-fired power more sustainable. However, the costs of these technologies need to be managed to avoid weakening competitiveness or relocating energy production to places with less strict standards.
Nuclear energy has gained new political support in 2010. The document discusses the increased bipartisan support for nuclear power in Congress and from the Obama administration. It summarizes the progress being made on new nuclear plant development, including 13 license applications under review and expectations for 4 new reactors to begin operation by 2017. It also reviews the strong performance of operating nuclear plants, with the average capacity factor reaching 90.5% in 2009. Priorities for 2010 are ensuring safety and reliability of operating plants, effective risk management for new plant projects, and reinforcing the new political mandate for expanded nuclear energy.
The document discusses power supply and demand in the Philippines, specifically addressing the projected shortage in 2012 and whether building additional renewable and fossil fuel power plants could meet demand without operating the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). It finds that indicated capacity additions from geothermal, hydro, natural gas and other renewable sources could close the projected 2012 supply gap. It also notes that reopening the BNPP would impose significant direct and indirect costs on consumers through a proposed nuclear tax and costs of decommissioning and waste disposal that would be passed on to customers. Operating the BNPP may no longer be necessary given the ability of alternative energy sources to meet projected demand as well as the economic impacts of the global financial crisis in slowing electricity
Courtney Hanson Nuclear Economics-20120630MATRRorg
Nuclear Economics presentation by Courney Hanson of Georgia Women's Action for New Directions (Georgia WAND) at the KNOW NUKES Y'ALL SUMMIT on June 30, 2012.
IMPROVING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT\'S OPERATIONALJoe Miller
The document discusses ways that nuclear power plant operational efficiencies have improved in the US over the last 40 years. It states that while the number of plants has remained constant, the percentage of nuclear power in the energy mix has increased due to a substantial rise in capacity factor from 60% in 1980 to over 90% today. This was achieved primarily by reducing outage times, extending fuel cycles, using higher-burnup fuel, and decreasing unplanned outages and fuel failures. The improvements allowed nuclear plants to generate more electricity without building new reactors.
The document is a thesis submitted by Ubong S. Simon for a Master's degree that analyzes the natural gas potential of Nigeria and develops future energy supply plans for Ghana and Nigeria. It examines the current energy resources, supply, demand, and infrastructure of both countries. The thesis establishes energy demand scenarios through 2020 and proposes plans to increase Nigeria's domestic energy supply, particularly through developing its natural gas resources and constructing additional power generation capacity. The plans aim to meet Nigeria's growing energy needs in a sustainable manner while addressing related economic, environmental, and policy implications.
The UK has outstanding possibilities of contributing to climate change (CC)
through wind renewable energy technology (RET). Further development is expected from
geothermal source heat pumps (GSHP), biomass, hydroelectric and passive solar design`RETs. The UK has a limited quantity of resource for solar power. Hydrogen RET
possibilities are still unknown.
Ashton Green (AG) and London are examples of rural and urban developments
respectively renewable energy (RE) developments. Both approaches depend on the availability of resources in-site. AG approach bears the economics more than London, which targets to be in the vanguard of RETs development.
Technology has evolved significantly since AG project was started. This can lead to
a review of the technologies to be implemented. London, on its side, may consider the possibility of settling an Energy Service Company (ESCO) to serve the city as energy service provider.
The document summarizes information from a meeting about green energy initiatives in the UK. It discusses the following:
1. 22 organizations signed agreements to become Green Deal providers, with only 3 approved to offer Energy Company Obligation (ECO) schemes.
2. A new Green Deal Provider Guide was published along with a list of all approved providers. An energy advice line was also opened to provide information.
3. Details were given on the Renewable Heat Incentive program and numbers of vouchers issued in the southwest region under Phase 1. Phase 2 was set to begin in May 2012.
4. Two projects in the southwest were evaluating how low-income households could benefit from Green Deal and E
1.3. menghitung penghematan energi hseckhoiril anwar
Materi ToT Home and School Energy Efficiency Champion (HSEEC) 2014.
1. Pengenalan Efisiensi Energi:
- menghitung penghematan energi hsec
Download File Microsoft PowerPoint: http://adf.ly/ruB7V
I 6 diversification of res in norway, tommy olsen, tronderenergiInnovation Norway
Norway has abundant renewable energy resources including hydropower and wind power. Hydropower currently provides almost all of Norway's electricity and offers flexibility. Norway has significant untapped potential for onshore and offshore wind power development. TrønderEnergi, a Norwegian energy company, produces over 1,800 GWh of hydropower annually and is increasing its focus on other renewables like onshore and offshore wind through partnerships and investments. These actions help Norway meet its renewable energy and emissions reduction goals while also creating new industrial opportunities.
Mrs. J. Smith
Date: 28th April 2009
Property: 9 Westbourne Drive, Guiseley, Leeds, LS20 8DB
___________________________________________________________________
1. ROADS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
1.1 Is the property served by a public right of way?
No.
1.2 Is the property served by a proposed new road or alteration of an existing road?
No.
1.3 Is the property served by a private right of way?
No.
1.4 Is there a right of access over or through the property?
No.
1.5 Is the property subject to any public
1) Fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas are non-renewable energy sources that were formed from the remains of ancient plants and animals. They release pollution and greenhouse gases when burned.
2) Renewable energy sources like solar, wind, tidal, and hydroelectric power do not cause pollution or contribute to global warming.
3) Most energy resources, including fossil fuels, food, and biomass originally received their energy from the sun. Reducing fossil fuel usage helps make our supplies last longer and reduce global warming.
Laurus Energy aims to build one of the largest energy companies in North America by unlocking a vast indigenous coal resource using new underground coal gasification technology. This technology can produce synthetic natural gas and other products at a fraction of current oil and gas prices from coal that cannot otherwise be accessed. Laurus has leased over 2 billion metric tons of coal in Alberta and plans to commence a calibration burn within 6 months to demonstrate the technology and establish off-take agreements. The goal is to solve energy problems, build a large reserves base, and create the next great North American energy company.
Lightbridge Corporation is developing advanced nuclear fuel designs to improve reactor safety and economics. Their metallic fuel designs can be used in existing reactors to enable power uprates of 10% or higher without requiring changes to the reactors or refueling schedules. This increases reactor output while enhancing safety features such as lower operating temperatures and faster cooldown in accident scenarios. Lightbridge fuel is targeting initial commercialization in large US reactors starting in the early 2020s. It has the potential to generate hundreds of millions of dollars per year in royalty fees for Lightbridge if it captures a significant portion of the global reactor market.
The document discusses spent nuclear fuel disposition and its impact on the viability of nuclear energy. It summarizes the results of an energy system modeling analysis that examines strategies for minimizing spent nuclear fuel stockpiles within statutory limits, including the use of reprocessing and advanced nuclear technologies. The analysis finds that limiting permanent disposal capacity requires technologies that close the fuel cycle such as high-temperature gas-cooled reactors.
This presentation was given as part of the CCS Ready workshop which was held in association with the 6th Asia Clean Energy Forum (20 – 24 June, Manila)
The workshop discussed the range of measures and best practices that can be implemented to prompt the design, permitting and construction of CCS projects when designing or building a new fossil fuelled energy or industrial plant.
The workshop hosted participants of the Asian Development Banks’ Regional Technical Assistance Program who updated the group on the outcomes of their individual projects.
This presentation provides an update on the current project being undertaken under the Asian Development Bank’s Regional Technical Assistance Program which aims to conduct an analysis of the potential for CCS, culminating in a road map for a CCS demonstration project in Indonesia.
Lightbridge is developing advanced nuclear fuel designs to improve reactor safety and economics. Their metallic fuel is designed to enable higher power output, longer fuel cycles, and improved safety in existing and new reactors. Initial testing of Lightbridge fuel is planned for 2023, with commercial production expected in 2025. The fuel is projected to generate significant revenue from royalties and help meet growing global energy demand and climate goals in a cost-effective way.
Indonesia has achieved strong GDP growth through robust infrastructure development and governance. Electricity demand is expected to nearly double by 2021 due to economic expansion. The government aims to increase electrification nationwide and coal's share in the energy mix to capitalize on domestic coal reserves. New regulations encourage private sector participation in generation to meet rising demand and close supply gaps between regions such as Java-Bali and outer islands.
Energy is one of the most important factors for a developing country like Bangladesh. Like the rest of the
countries of the world, the demand for energy is increasing day by day in our country. Energy sector of
Bangladesh is exceedingly depended on the limited gas reserve. Given the rising demand for fuel it will be
very difficult t to meat this demand with only indigenous natural gas. About 80% of the power generation in
the country is now gas based. Therefore diversification of fuel has become indispensible it has been
envision 2021 that 53% of the power generation will be coal based by year 2021. The worldwide scenario
shows that, Coal is the ultimate fuel for future. Bangladesh is very lucky that it has got significant but
almost untapped high quality coal resource. Five coal fields in the country contain 3.3 billion metric tons
coal. Recently rate of coal production from Barapukuria are increased significantly due to application of
modern coal extracting method, LTCC. Coal to Synthesis gas conversion, is an emerging technology to
wide the application area of coal and commercially proved technology worldwide. The paper gives an
overview of the current state of coal scenario and natural gas scenario in Bangladesh. Here we discuss the
principles of coal to syngas conversion technology and aside from a brief introduction to 5 process
methods for conversion of coal to Synthesis Natural Gas (SNG). The Steam-Oxygen Gasification,
Hydrogasification, Catalytic Steam Gasification, Underground Steam-Oxygen Gasification, Underground
Hydrogasification processes are discussed with the help of process flow diagram. This paper also
summaries the present scenario of Syngas production worldwide. Finally we propose a coal based syngas
infrastructure, where coal is converted to syngas, then processed to make Synthesis Natural Gas (SNG),
then it transmitted via dedicated pipeline or injected into existing natural gas pipeline to the different types
of user like Household, Thermal Power Plant, Brick Field, Ceramics & Glass Industry and any kind of
thermal process industry. This proposed technology is design to reduce the dependency on natural gas.
Lifetime Evaluation of Electric Vehicles and Gasoline Vehicles Fuel SourcesBing Huang
The document compares the lifetime carbon emissions and energy consumption of electric vehicles (EVs) and gasoline vehicles (GVs). It analyzes the full lifecycle for both, including production of fuel/batteries as well as vehicle operation. For GVs, it examines the energy and emissions from oil extraction, transport, refining and fuel delivery. It finds the total lifetime emissions for a GV are 83,465 kg of CO2 and energy used is 56,049 kWh. For EVs, it looks at emissions from battery material extraction, transport and manufacturing. The document aims to conduct a fair comparison of the full lifecycles of EVs and GVs.
The document compares various alternative fuels to gasoline across multiple properties. It provides information on the chemical structure, fuel material/feedstocks, energy content and gasoline gallon equivalents of fuels like biodiesel, propane, compressed natural gas, ethanol and hydrogen. The document also discusses factors like maintenance issues, energy security impacts and references for further information on various fuel properties.
This powerpoint presentation discusses fossil fuels and energy usage around the world. It explores what fossil fuels are, how they are used differently worldwide, and provides data on energy consumption in various countries. The main sources of energy discussed are oil, gas, and coal, which are non-renewable fossil fuels derived from ancient organic remains. The presentation examines how fossil fuels are used for electricity, heating homes and making goods, and fuel for transportation. Country-level data shows energy usage varies significantly, with Australia, France, the UK and USA using the most, and Bangladesh, Kenya and India using the least.
I 3 practical implementation of clean coal technologies j pacyna niluInnovation Norway
The document discusses making coal combustion more environmentally friendly through various technologies and approaches. It notes that world energy demand is increasing significantly and coal accounts for over a third of that rise. Technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and highly efficient combustion can reduce emissions from coal. Implementing pre-combustion, post-combustion and co-control technologies along with CCS in new power stations could help control pollutants like mercury and make coal-fired power more sustainable. However, the costs of these technologies need to be managed to avoid weakening competitiveness or relocating energy production to places with less strict standards.
Nuclear energy has gained new political support in 2010. The document discusses the increased bipartisan support for nuclear power in Congress and from the Obama administration. It summarizes the progress being made on new nuclear plant development, including 13 license applications under review and expectations for 4 new reactors to begin operation by 2017. It also reviews the strong performance of operating nuclear plants, with the average capacity factor reaching 90.5% in 2009. Priorities for 2010 are ensuring safety and reliability of operating plants, effective risk management for new plant projects, and reinforcing the new political mandate for expanded nuclear energy.
The document discusses power supply and demand in the Philippines, specifically addressing the projected shortage in 2012 and whether building additional renewable and fossil fuel power plants could meet demand without operating the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). It finds that indicated capacity additions from geothermal, hydro, natural gas and other renewable sources could close the projected 2012 supply gap. It also notes that reopening the BNPP would impose significant direct and indirect costs on consumers through a proposed nuclear tax and costs of decommissioning and waste disposal that would be passed on to customers. Operating the BNPP may no longer be necessary given the ability of alternative energy sources to meet projected demand as well as the economic impacts of the global financial crisis in slowing electricity
Courtney Hanson Nuclear Economics-20120630MATRRorg
Nuclear Economics presentation by Courney Hanson of Georgia Women's Action for New Directions (Georgia WAND) at the KNOW NUKES Y'ALL SUMMIT on June 30, 2012.
IMPROVING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT\'S OPERATIONALJoe Miller
The document discusses ways that nuclear power plant operational efficiencies have improved in the US over the last 40 years. It states that while the number of plants has remained constant, the percentage of nuclear power in the energy mix has increased due to a substantial rise in capacity factor from 60% in 1980 to over 90% today. This was achieved primarily by reducing outage times, extending fuel cycles, using higher-burnup fuel, and decreasing unplanned outages and fuel failures. The improvements allowed nuclear plants to generate more electricity without building new reactors.
This document discusses the risks of nuclear energy at each stage from mining to waste disposal. It notes radiation increases at each stage and that even modern science has no solution for nuclear waste. Several nuclear accidents are described that contaminated large areas for thousands of years. Concerns about impact on the environment, agriculture and human health are raised. Alternatives like renewable energy and energy efficiency are suggested as safer options that are also cheaper than nuclear. The politics of promoting nuclear power in India for foreign profits despite risks is criticized.
The document contains several articles related to economics topics:
1) Germany's decision to shut down all nuclear power plants by 2022 due to safety concerns following Japan's Fukushima disaster. This will make Germany the first major economy to be nuclear-free and require investment in renewable energy.
2) A conference discussing challenges and opportunities for managing water resources in Canada and globally in light of increasing demand.
3) An article advising homeowners to distinguish needs from wants when planning renovations and factoring in maintenance costs versus wants.
4) Loblaw dropping a small salad dressing supplier after 20 years in favor of larger brands, citing store space limitations. This negatively impacted the supplier who relied on Lob
This document outlines the key topics around nuclear power, including: the economics of nuclear power compared to coal; existing nuclear power plants in India and their details; the processes of nuclear fission and the nuclear fuel cycle; the layout of a typical nuclear power plant and its main components like the nuclear reactor; the merits of nuclear power in being more energy dense and producing less pollution than coal plants; and the demerits like high capital costs, radioactive pollution risks, expensive fuel and difficult waste disposal.
The document discusses the costs associated with nuclear power generation, including:
1) Construction costs for nuclear power plants were around $2000 per kW in the 1990s and construction of newer generation plants took just over 3 years to complete on budget.
2) Operating costs for nuclear power have decreased from 3.63 cents per kWh in 1987 to 1.68 cents per kWh in 2004 with plant availability increasing from 67% to over 90%.
3) In the US, nuclear power operators are charged 0.1 cents per kWh for nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning costs average $300 million per plant.
The document discusses the costs associated with nuclear power generation, including:
1) Construction costs for nuclear power plants were around $2000 per kW in the 1990s and construction of newer generation plants took just over 3 years to complete on budget.
2) Operating costs for nuclear power have decreased from 3.63 cents per kWh in 1987 to 1.68 cents per kWh in 2004 with plant availability increasing from 67% to over 90%.
3) In the US, nuclear power operators are charged 0.1 cents per kWh for nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning costs average $300 million per plant.
The document discusses spent nuclear fuel disposition and its impact on the viability of nuclear energy. It summarizes the results of an energy system modeling analysis that examines strategies for minimizing spent nuclear fuel stockpiles within statutory limits, including the use of reprocessing and advanced nuclear technologies. The analysis finds that limiting permanent waste disposal and interim storage requires adopting fuel cycle technologies like HTGRs that can recycle transuranics from spent fuel.
Wind power provides a renewable energy alternative, but has some disadvantages compared to other sources. Onshore wind has lower installation costs than offshore wind, but offshore wind has higher capacity factors and may have fewer social and environmental impacts. Over a turbine's lifetime, installation costs make up about 75% of overall costs. Operation and maintenance costs are also significant, especially for offshore wind where access and repairs are more difficult. For wind power to fulfill its green potential, improvements in battery or energy storage technologies are needed to address the intermittency of wind as a resource.
This document discusses improving energy efficiency in buildings through better insulation standards. It notes that buildings account for 40% of energy use in Europe and the US, with most of that going towards heating and cooling. Up to 90% of heating energy can be saved through existing insulation technology. Tighter insulation standards for new buildings and renovations of existing buildings could save €270 billion annually in energy costs and cut CO2 emissions by 460 million tonnes per year. Passive House standards, which use ultra-efficient insulation, are highlighted as an ambitious goal for new construction.
Ee w09.1 m_ organization of electricity markets_ liberalisation, competition...Silvester Van Koten
This document discusses several topics related to energy economics, including:
- The declining costs of solar photovoltaic panels over the past 20 years, with costs falling 85-90% since 1998. Some regions now have solar costs between 5-8 euro cents per kilowatt, competitive with or cheaper than fossil fuels.
- Models of integrating intermittent renewable energy like wind and solar into power systems, which show costs increase with higher penetration levels due to profile costs when generation occurs during low price hours, balancing costs from forecast errors, and potential grid costs.
- The optimal share of variable renewables depends on factors like fuel prices, with higher gas prices reducing the optimal wind share surprisingly.
- Organization
Nuclear energy has key advantages over other alternative energy sources as it is reliable, clean, and cheap to operate without diminishing food supply. Nuclear power works by splitting uranium isotopes to release energy in the form of mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2. Investing in nuclear power in the Philippines could help address upcoming power shortages and lower electricity costs significantly from the current 5 PHP/kWh to 2 PHP/kWh by refurbishing existing nuclear plants. Nuclear power also promotes scientific development and is resistant to corruption due to infrequent refueling needs.
The document discusses two difficulties for energy storage: 1) The energy storage market has not been as robust as predicted due to falling natural gas prices undermining storage applications that compete with gas generation like peak shaving and integrating renewables. 2) Operating bulk energy storage can increase emissions as it replaces clean with dirty electricity and has transmission losses. The author models a bulk storage device in various locations and finds net CO2 emissions are significant while NOx and SO2 emissions vary widely but can be large. Falling gas prices have made energy storage uneconomic for applications that compete with gas generation.
Renewable energy is generally electricity supplied from sources, such as wind power, solar power,
geothermal energy, hydro power and various forms of biomass. The popularity of renewable energy
has experienced a significant upsurge in recent times due to the exhaustion of conventional power
generation methods and increasing realization of its adverse effects on the environment. Wind energy
has been harnessed for centuries but it has only emerged as a major part of our energy solution quite
recently and this report focus on utilizing wind energy by using vertical axis wind turbine.
FINAL SUBMITTED PAPER-TRENDS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURES AND THEIR APPLICATIONSNavneet Agarwal
This document discusses trends in renewable energy resources and their applications, specifically in developing countries. It provides an overview of various renewable resources like hydroelectric, biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The current dominance of fossil fuels is described along with projections that they will be depleted. Renewable resources are gaining importance due to benefits like energy price stability, reduced air pollution, protecting the climate, and providing unlimited supplies. Recent growth and investments in renewable energy are also discussed. The conclusion emphasizes the environmental and economic benefits of transitioning to renewable sources.
Low energy consumption_ammonia_production_2011_paperSteve Wittrig
This document discusses options for reducing the energy consumption of ammonia production processes. It provides background on the historical reduction in energy usage from 9.5 to around 7 Gcal/ton and discusses the thermodynamic minimum of 4.44 Gcal/ton. Real processes consume more due to operating at higher temperatures and pressures. Key strategies discussed to reduce energy usage include minimizing heat released to the environment, improving steam system efficiency, extending physical desorption in CO2 removal, and using more efficient machinery. With optimization, energy consumption of around 6.5 Gcal/ton is estimated to be realistic.
The document argues that natural gas and nuclear power are the only realistic options to meet the dual goals of decreasing carbon emissions while meeting increasing global energy demand. It makes three key points:
1) Converting coal plants to natural gas and using natural gas for transportation will significantly reduce emissions in the short-term as nuclear plants require more time to develop.
2) Only natural gas and nuclear can meet rising global energy demands at scale, as renewables have much lower energy densities and require vast amounts of land that is not available.
3) A plan is needed to implement increased natural gas use while expediting permitting and construction of more nuclear plants to achieve these emission reductions and energy needs over the long run.
3.4 – "Natural Gas – Conventional & Unconventional Gas Sources" – Jakub Sieme...Pomcert
The document discusses conventional and unconventional natural gas sources and forecasts for future natural gas supply and demand. It summarizes projections from organizations like IGU and IEA that see global gas demand increasing from around 3 trillion cubic meters in 2008 to 4.4-4.9 trillion cubic meters by 2030. Unconventional gas sources like shale gas are expected to play a larger role, particularly in the US where production of unconventional gas could meet 45% of demand by 2035. Infrastructure like pipelines will also need to expand to accommodate increased gas trade and supply security.
Presentation On Nuclear power plant By Khairul BasharKhairul Bashar
The document discusses arguments for why Japan should re-start its nuclear power plants. It notes that nuclear energy provides competitive costs, high energy density, reliability, and does not depend on weather. However, after the Fukushima disaster in 2011, Japan shut down most of its nuclear reactors. This led to increased fossil fuel imports and higher electricity costs. The document argues that nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels and produces less radioactive waste. It also discusses new small modular reactor designs that could provide safer, decentralized nuclear power in the future.
The document discusses nuclear waste storage capacity at Yucca Mountain and projects how long until it reaches full capacity under different growth scenarios for nuclear power in the United States. It finds that with modest growth of 0.5-1.5% per year in the number of nuclear reactors, Yucca Mountain will reach capacity by 2037-2034. However, the current US nuclear waste tax will not generate enough revenue to fund a necessary second repository. The document argues the tax should be directly linked to the amount of waste produced at each plant.
2008 Presentation I gave at Grinnell college arguing for renewables and efficiency to replace coal for electrical generation
I give concrete plans for how to transition to renewables for small Iowa communities and do it at a profit
- The document discusses using nuclear energy to power transportation through electricity rather than hydrogen. It argues that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) powered by nuclear electricity could significantly reduce oil imports and air pollution today at a lower cost than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. PHEVs may capture the transportation market permanently if people become accustomed to powering daily travel with the lowest-cost electricity from nuclear plants. High-temperature electrolysis could lower the cost of nuclear hydrogen production for industrial users compared to room-temperature electrolysis powered by nuclear electricity. However, nuclear hydrogen will always cost more than nuclear electricity for transportation or industrial uses.
The document discusses projections for nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain. It finds that at a growth rate of 1.5% in the number of nuclear reactors, Yucca Mountain will reach full capacity by 2034. At lower growth rates it would take longer - 2037 at 0.5% growth and 2042 at -0.5% growth. The document argues the US needs to select a second nuclear waste storage site soon to avoid a future crisis given the uncertainty in growth rates. It also critiques the current nuclear waste tax, finding it does not properly incentivize reducing waste or charge plants based on actual waste produced.
1. The Economics of Nuclear Power
(updated 9 March 2011)
l Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except
where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
l Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though
capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for
gas-fired plants.
l In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal
costs are fully taken into account.
Assessing the relative costs of new generating plants utilising different technologies is a complex
matter and the results depend crucially on location. Coal is, and will probably remain, economically
attractive in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible
domestic coal resources as long as carbon emissions are cost-free. Gas is also competitive for
base-load power in many places, particularly using combined-cycle plants, though rising gas prices
have removed much of the advantage.
Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuels for electricity generation, despite
relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning
costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, the
economics of nuclear power are outstanding.
See also the December 2005 World Nuclear Association report (pdf 310 kB) The New Economics
of Nuclear Power.
The cost of fuel
From the outset the basic attraction of nuclear energy has been its low fuel costs compared with
coal, oil and gas-fired plants. Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched and fabricated into
fuel elements, and about half of the cost is due to enrichment and fabrication. In the assessment of
the economics of nuclear power allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive
used fuel and the ultimate disposal of this used fuel or the wastes separated from it. But even with
these included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about a third
of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle
plant.
In March 2011, the approx. US $ cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel (at current spot
uranium price):
Uranium: 8.9 kg U3O8 x $146 US$ 1299
Conversion: 7.5 kg U x $13 US$ 98
US$ 1132
Enrichment: 7.3 SWU x $155
Fuel fabrication: per kg US$ 240
US$ 2769
Total, approx:
At 45,000 MWd/t burn-up this gives 360,000 kWh electrical per kg, hence fuel cost: 0.77 c/kWh.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 1 / 12
Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain
the nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment
levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-
2. US$ 98
Conversion: 7.5 kg U x $13
US$ 1132
Enrichment: 7.3 SWU x $155 Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
Fuel fabrication: per kg US$ 240
US$ 2769
Total, approx:
At 45,000 MWd/t burn-up this gives 360,000 kWh electrical per kg, hence fuel cost: 0.77 c/kWh.
Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain
the nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment
levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-
up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.
Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and
cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram
of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is
therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.
The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a
large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect (see below). Uranium is abundant.
There are other possible savings. For example, if used fuel is reprocessed and the recovered
plutonium and uranium is used in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, more energy can be extracted. The costs
of achieving this are large, but are offset by MOX fuel not needing enrichment and particularly by the
smaller amount of high-level wastes produced at the end. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to
one MOX assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume,
mass and cost of disposal.
Comparing the economics of different forms of electricity generation
It is important to distinguish between the economics of nuclear plants already in operation and
those at the planning stage. Once capital investment costs re effectively “sunk”, existing plants
operate at very low costs and are effectively “cash machines”. Their operations and maintenance
(O&M) and fuel costs (including used fuel management) are, along with hydropower plants, at the
low end of the spectrum and make them very suitable as base-load power suppliers. This is
irrespective of whether the investment costs are amortized or depreciated in corporate financial
accounts – assuming the forward or marginal costs of operation are below the power price, the
plant will operate.
US figures for 2008 published by NEI show the general picture, with nuclear generating power at
1.87 c/kW.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 2 / 12
3. US figures for 2008 published by NEI show the general picture, with nuclear generating power at
1.87 c/kW. Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and
states, as well as with the age of the plant.
A Finnish study in 2000 also quantified fuel price sensitivity to electricity costs:
These show that a doubling of fuel prices would result in the electricity cost for nuclear rising about
9%, for coal rising 31% and for gas 66%. Gas prices have since risen significantly.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 3 / 12
The impact of varying the uranium price in isolation is shown below in a worked example of a typical
US plant, assuming no alteration in the tails assay at the enrichment plant.
4. Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
These show that a doubling of fuel prices would result in the electricity cost for nuclear rising about
9%, for coal rising 31% and for gas 66%. Gas prices have since risen significantly.
The impact of varying the uranium price in isolation is shown below in a worked example of a typical
US plant, assuming no alteration in the tails assay at the enrichment plant.
Doubling the uranium price (say from $25 to $50 per lb U3O8) takes the fuel cost up from 0.50 to
0.62 US cents per kWh, an increase of one quarter, and the expected cost of generation of the best
US plants from 1.3 US cents per kWh to 1.42 cents per kWh (an increase of almost 10%). So while
there is some impact, it is comparatively minor, especially by comparison with the impact of gas
prices on the economics of gas generating plants. In these, 90% of the marginal costs can be fuel.
Only if uranium prices rise to above $100 per lb U3O8 ($260 /kgU) and stay there for a prolonged
period (which seems very unlikely) will the impact on nuclear generating costs be considerable.
Nevertheless, for nuclear power plants operating in competitive power markets where it is
impossible to pass on any fuel price increases (ie the utility is a price-taker), higher uranium prices
will cut corporate profitability. Yet fuel costs have been relatively stable over time – the rise in the
world uranium price between 2003 and 2007 added to generation costs, but conversion,
enrichment and fuel fabrication costs did not followed the same trend.
For prospective new nuclear plants, the fuel element is even less significant (see below). The typical
front end nuclear fuel cost is typically only 15-20% of the total, as opposed to 30-40% for operating
nuclear plants.
Future cost competitiveness
Understanding the cost of new generating capacity and its output requires careful analysis of what
is in any set of figures. There are three broad components: capital, finance and operating costs.
Capital and financing costs make up the project cost.
Capital costs comprise several things: the bare plant cost (usually identified as engineering-
procurement-construction - EPC - cost), the owner's costs (land, cooling infrastructure,
administration and associated buildings, site works, switchyards, project management, licences,
etc), cost escalation and inflation. Owner's costs may include transmission infrastructure. The term
"overnight capital cost" is often used, meaning EPC plus owners’ costs and excluding financing,
escalation due to increased material and labour costs, and inflation. Construction cost – sometimes
called "all-in cost", adds to overnight cost any escalation and interest during construction and up to
the start of construction. It is expressed in the same units as overnight cost and is useful for
identifying the total cost of construction and for determining the effects of construction delays. In / 12
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 4
general the construction costs of nuclear power plants are significantly higher than for coal- or gas-
fired plants because of the need to use special materials, and to incorporate sophisticated safety
features and back-up control equipment. These contribute much of the nuclear generation cost, but
once the plant is built the cost variables are minor.
5. Capital costs comprise several things: the bare plant cost (usually identified as engineering-
procurement-construction - EPC - cost), the owner's costs (land, cooling infrastructure,
administration and associated buildings, site works, switchyards, project management, licences,
Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
etc), cost escalation and inflation. Owner's costs may include transmission infrastructure. The term
"overnight capital cost" is often used, meaning EPC plus owners’ costs and excluding financing,
escalation due to increased material and labour costs, and inflation. Construction cost – sometimes
called "all-in cost", adds to overnight cost any escalation and interest during construction and up to
the start of construction. It is expressed in the same units as overnight cost and is useful for
identifying the total cost of construction and for determining the effects of construction delays. In
general the construction costs of nuclear power plants are significantly higher than for coal- or gas-
fired plants because of the need to use special materials, and to incorporate sophisticated safety
features and back-up control equipment. These contribute much of the nuclear generation cost, but
once the plant is built the cost variables are minor.
Long construction periods will push up financing costs, and in the past they have done so
spectacularly. In Asia construction times have tended to be shorter, for instance the new-generation
1300 MWe Japanese reactors which began operating in 1996 and 1997 were built in a little over
four years, and 48 to 54 months is typical projection for plants today.
Decommissioning costs are about 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. But
when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the
generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost
of the electricity produced.
Financing costs will depend on the rate of interest on debt, the debt-equity ratio, and if it is
regulated, how the capital costs are recovered. There must also be an allowance for a rate of return
on equity, which is risk capital.
Operating costs include operating and maintenance (O&M) plus fuel. Fuel cost figures include
used fuel management and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other
technologies, are internal for nuclear power (ie they have to be paid or set aside securely by the
utility generating the power, and the cost passed on to the customer in the actual tariff).
This “back-end” of the fuel cycle, including used fuel storage or disposal in a waste repository,
contributes up to 10% of the overall costs per kWh, - rather less if there is direct disposal of used
fuel rather than reprocessing. The $26 billion US used fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh
levy.
Calculations of relative generating costs are made using levelised costs, meaning average costs
of producing electricity including capital, finance, owner's costs on site, fuel and operation over a
plant's lifetime, with provision for decommissioning and waste disposal.
It is important to note that capital cost figures quoted by reactor vendors, or which are general and
not site-specific, will usually just be for EPC costs. This is because owner's costs will vary hugely,
most of all according to whether a plant is Greenfield or at an established site, perhaps replacing
an old plant.
Mid 2008 vendor figures for overnight costs (excluding owner's costs) have been quoted as:
GE-Hitachi ESBWR just under $3000/kW
GE-Hitachi ABWR just over $3000/kW
Westinghouse AP1000 about $3000/kW
There are several possible sources of variation which preclude confident comparison of overnight
or EPC (Engineering, Procurement & Construction) capital costs - eg whether initial core load of
fuel is included. Much more obvious is whether the price is for the nuclear island alone (Nuclear
Steam Supply System) or the whole plant including turbines and generators - all the above figures
include these. Further differences relate to site works such as cooling towers as well as land and
permitting - usually they are all owner's costs as outlined earlier in this section. Financing costs are
additional, adding typically around 30%, and finally there is the question of whether cost figures are
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 5 / 12
in current (or specified year) dollar values or in those of the year in which spending occurs.
Major studies on future cost competitiveness
6. Westinghouse AP1000 about $3000/kW
There are several possible sources of variation which preclude confident comparison of overnight
Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
or EPC (Engineering, Procurement & Construction) capital costs - eg whether initial core load of
fuel is included. Much more obvious is whether the price is for the nuclear island alone (Nuclear
Steam Supply System) or the whole plant including turbines and generators - all the above figures
include these. Further differences relate to site works such as cooling towers as well as land and
permitting - usually they are all owner's costs as outlined earlier in this section. Financing costs are
additional, adding typically around 30%, and finally there is the question of whether cost figures are
in current (or specified year) dollar values or in those of the year in which spending occurs.
Major studies on future cost competitiveness
There have been many studies carried out examining the economics of various future generation
options, and the following are merely the most important and also focus on the nuclear element.
A 2010 OECD study Projected Costs of generating Electricity compared 2009 data for generating
base-load electricity by 2015 as well as costs of power from renewables, and showed that nuclear
power was very competitive at $30 per tonne CO2 cost and low discount rate. The study comprised
data for 190 power plants from 17 OECD countries as well as some data from Brazil, China,
Russia and South Africa. It used levelised lifetime costs with carbon price internalised (OECD only)
and discounted cash flow at 5% and 10%, as previously. The precise competitiveness of different
base-load technologies depended very much on local circumstances and the costs of financing and
fuels.
Nuclear overnight capital costs in OECD ranged from US$ 1556/kW for APR-1400 in South Korea
through $3009 for ABWR in Japan, $3382/kW for Gen III+ in USA, $3860 for EPR at Flamanville in
France to $5863/kW for EPR in Switzerland, with world median $4100/kW. Belgium, Netherlands,
Czech Rep and Hungary were all over $5000/kW. In China overnight costs were $1748/kW for
CPR-1000 and $2302/kW for AP1000, and in Russia $2933/kW for VVER-1150. EPRI (USA)
gave $2970/kW for APWR or ABWR, Eurelectric gave $4724/kW for EPR. OECD black coal
plants were costed at $807-2719/kW, those with carbon capture and compression (tabulated as
CCS, but the cost not including storage) at $3223-5811/kW, brown coal $1802-3485, gas plants
$635-1747/kW and onshore wind capacity $1821-3716/kW. (Overnight costs were defined here as
EPC, owner's costs and contingency, but excluding interest during construction.)
OECD electricity generating cost projections for year 2010 on - 5% discount rate, c/kWh
country nuclear coal coal with CCS Gas CCGT Onshore wind
Belgium 6.1 8.2 - 9.0 9.6
Czech R 7.0 8.5-9.4 8.8-9.3 9.2 14.6
France 5.6 - - - 9.0
Germany 5.0 7.0-7.9 6.8-8.5 8.5 10.6
Hungary 8.2 - - - -
Japan 5.0 8.8 - 10.5 -
Korea 2.9-3.3 6.6-6.8 - 9.1 -
Netherlands 6.3 8.2 - 7.8 8.6
Slovakia 6.3 12.0 - - -
Switzerland 5.5-7.8 - - 9.4 16.3
USA 4.9 7.2-7.5 6.8 7.7 4.8
China* 3.0-3.6 5.5 - 4.9 5.1-8.9
Russia* 4.3 7.5 8.7 7.1 6.3
EPRI (USA) 4.8 7.2 - 7.9 6.2
Eurelectric 6.0 6.3-7.4 7.5 8.6 11.3
* For China and Russia: 2.5c is added to coal and 1.3c to gas as carbon emission cost to enable sensible comparison with other data in those
fuel/technology categories, though within those countries coal and gas will in fact be cheaper than the Table above suggests.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 6 / 12
Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2010, table 4.1.
At 5% discount rate comparative costs are as shown above. Nuclear is comfortably cheaper than
coal and gas in all countries. At 10% discount rate (below) nuclear is still cheaper than coal in all but
7. Russia* 4.3 7.5 8.7 7.1 6.3
EPRI (USA) 4.8 7.2 - 7.9 6.2
Eurelectric 6.0 6.3-7.4 7.5 8.6 11.3 Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
* For China and Russia: 2.5c is added to coal and 1.3c to gas as carbon emission cost to enable sensible comparison with other data in those
fuel/technology categories, though within those countries coal and gas will in fact be cheaper than the Table above suggests.
Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2010, table 4.1.
At 5% discount rate comparative costs are as shown above. Nuclear is comfortably cheaper than
coal and gas in all countries. At 10% discount rate (below) nuclear is still cheaper than coal in all but
the Eurelectric estimate and three EU countries, but in these three gas becomes cheaper still. Coal
with carbon capture is mostly more expensive than either nuclear or paying the $30 per tonne for
CO2 emissions, though the report points out "great uncertainties" in the cost of projected CCS.
Also, investment cost becomes a much greater proportion of power cost than with 5% discount
rate.
OECD electricity generating cost projections for year 2010 on - 10% discount rate, c/kWh
country nuclear coal coal with CCS Gas CCGT Onshore wind
Belgium 10.9 10.0 - 9.3-9.9 13.6
Czech R 11.5 11.4-13.3 13.6-14.1 10.4 21.9
France 9.2 - - - 12.2
Germany 8.3 8.7-9.4 9.5-11.0 9.3 14.3
Hungary 12.2 - - - -
Japan 7.6 10.7 - 12.0 -
Korea 4.2-4.8 7.1-7.4 - 9.5 -
Netherlands 10.5 10.0 - 8.2 12.2
Slovakia 9.8 14.2 - - -
Switzerland 9.0-13.6 - - 10.5 23.4
USA 7.7 8.8-9.3 9.4 8.3 7.0
China* 4.4-5.5 5.8 - 5.2 7.2-12.6
Russia* 6.8 9.0 11.8 7.8 9.0
EPRI (USA) 7.3 8.8 - 8.3 9.1
Eurelectric 10.6 8.0-9.0 10.2 9.4 15.5
* For China and Russia: 2.5c is added to coal and 1.3c to gas as carbon emission cost to enable sensible comparison with other data in those
fuel/technology categories, though within those countries coal and gas will in fact be cheaper than the Table above suggests.
Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2010, table 4.1.
A 2004 report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compared
the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA.
Various nuclear options were covered, and for an initial ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to
5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year
construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh,
depending greatly on fuel price.
The levelised nuclear power cost figures include up to 29% of the overnight capital cost as interest,
and the report notes that up to another 24% of the overnight capital cost needs to be added for the
initial unit of a first-of-a-kind advanced design such as the AP1000, defining the high end of the
range above. For more advanced plants such as the EPR or SWR1000, overnight capital cost of
$1800/kW is assumed and power costs are projected beyond the range above. However,
considering a series of eight units of the same kind and assuming increased efficiency due to
experience which lowers overnight capital cost, the levelised power costs drop 20% from those
quoted above and where first-of-a-kind engineering costs are amortised (eg the $1500/kW case
above), they drop 32%, making them competitive at about 3.4 c/kWh.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 7 / 12
Nuclear plant: projected electrcity costs (c/kWh)
8. and the report notes that up to another 24% of the overnight capital cost needs to be added for the
initial unit of a first-of-a-kind advanced design such as the AP1000, defining the high end of the
range above. For more advanced plants such as the EPR or SWR1000, overnight capital cost of
Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
$1800/kW is assumed and power costs are projected beyond the range above. However,
considering a series of eight units of the same kind and assuming increased efficiency due to
experience which lowers overnight capital cost, the levelised power costs drop 20% from those
quoted above and where first-of-a-kind engineering costs are amortised (eg the $1500/kW case
above), they drop 32%, making them competitive at about 3.4 c/kWh.
Nuclear plant: projected electrcity costs (c/kWh)
Overnight capital cost $/kW 1200 1500 1800
First unit 7 yr build, 40 yr life 5.3 6.2 7.1
5 yr build, 60 yr life 4.3 5.0 5.8
4th unit 7 yr build, 40 yr life 4.5 4.5 5.3
5 yr build, 60 yr life * 3.7 3.7 4.3
8th unit 7 yr build, 40 yr life 4.2 4.2 4.9
5 yr build, 60 yr life * 3.4 3.4 4.0
* calculated from above data
The study also shows that with a minimal carbon control cost impact of 1.5 c/kWh for coal and 1.0
c/kWh for gas superimposed on the above figures, nuclear is even more competitive. But more
importantly it goes on to explore other policy options which would offset investment risks and
compensate for first-of-a-kind engineering costs to encourage new nuclear investment, including
investment tax breaks, and production tax credits phasing out after 8 years. (US wind energy gets a
production tax credit which has risen to 2.1 c/kWh.)
In May 2009 an update of a heavily-referenced 2003 MIT study was published. This said that
"since 2003 construction costs for all types of large-scale engineered projects have escalated
dramatically. The estimated cost of constructing a nuclear power plant has increased at a rate of
15% per year heading into the current economic downturn. This is based both on the cost of actual
builds in Japan and Korea and on the projected cost of new plants planned for in the United States.
Capital costs for both coal and natural gas have increased as well, although not by as much. The
cost of natural gas and coal that peaked sharply is now receding. Taken together, these escalating
costs leave the situation [of relative costs] close to where it was in 2003." The overnight capital cost
was given as $4000/kW, in 2007 dollars. Applying the same cost of capital to nuclear as to coal
and gas, nuclear came out at 6.6 c/kWh, coal at 8.3 cents and gas at 7.4 cents, assuming a charge
of $25/tonne CO2 on the latter.
Escalating capital costs were also highlighted in the US Energy Information Administration
(EIA) 2010 report “Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants“. The US cost
estimate for new nuclear was revised upwards from $3902/kW by 37% to a value of $5339/kW for
2011 by the EIA. This is in contrast to coal, which increases by only 25%, and gas which actually
shows a 3% decrease in cost. Renewables estimates show solar dropping by 25% while onshore
wind increases by about 21%. The only option to increase faster than nuclear is offshore wind at
49%, while the increase in coal with CCS is about the same as nuclear. In the previous year's
estimate, EIA assumed that the cost of nuclear would drop with time and experience, and that by
2030 the cost of nuclear would drop by almost 30% in constant dollars.
By way of contrast, China is stating that it expects its costs for plants under construction to come in
at less than $2000/kW and that subsequent units should be in the range of $1600/kW. This
estimates is for the AP1000 design, the same as used by EIA for the USA. This would mean that an
AP1000 in the USA would cost about three times as much as the same plant built in China.
Different labour rates in the two countries are only part of the explanation. Standardised design,
numerous units being built, and increased localisation are all significant factors in China.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 8 / 12
The French Energy & Climate Directorate published in November 2008 an update of its earlier
regular studies on relative electricity generating costs. This shied away from cash figures to a large
extent due to rapid changes in both fuel and capital, but showed that at anything over 6000 hours
production per year (68% capacity factor), nuclear was cheaper than coal or gas combined cycle
9. 2030 the cost of nuclear would drop by almost 30% in constant dollars.
By way of contrast, China is stating that it expects its costs for plants under Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
construction to come in
at less than $2000/kW and that subsequent units should be in the range of $1600/kW. This
estimates is for the AP1000 design, the same as used by EIA for the USA. This would mean that an
AP1000 in the USA would cost about three times as much as the same plant built in China.
Different labour rates in the two countries are only part of the explanation. Standardised design,
numerous units being built, and increased localisation are all significant factors in China.
The French Energy & Climate Directorate published in November 2008 an update of its earlier
regular studies on relative electricity generating costs. This shied away from cash figures to a large
extent due to rapid changes in both fuel and capital, but showed that at anything over 6000 hours
production per year (68% capacity factor), nuclear was cheaper than coal or gas combined cycle
(CCG). At 100% capacity CCG was 25% more expensive than nuclear. At less than 4700 hours per
year CCG was cheapest, all without taking CO2 cost into account.
With the nuclear plant fixed costs were almost 75% of the total, with CCG they were less than 25%
including allowance for CO2 at $20/t. Other assumptions were 8% discount rate, gas at 6.85 $/GJ,
coal at EUR 60/t. The reference nuclear unit is the EPR of 1630 MWe net, sited on the coast,
assuming all development costs being borne by Flamanville 3, coming on line in 2020 and
operating only 40 of its planned 60 years. Capital cost apparently EUR 2000/kW. Capacity factor
91%, fuel enrichment is 5%, burnup 60 GWd/t and used fuel is reprocessed with MOX recycle. In
looking at overall fuel cost, uranium at $52/lb made up about 45% of it, and even though 3%
discount rate was used for back-end the study confirmed the very low cost of waste in the total -
about 13% of fuel cost, mostly for reprocessing.
At the end of 2008 EdF updated the overnight cost estimate for Flamanville 3 EPR (the first French
EPR, but with some supply contracts locked in before escalation) to EUR 4 billion in 2008 Euros
(EUR 2434/kW), and electricity cost 5.4 cents/kWh (compared with 6.8 c/kWh for CCGT and 7.0
c/kWh for coal, "with lowest assumptions" for CO2 cost). These costs were confirmed in mid 2009,
when EdF had spent nearly EUR 2 billion. In July 2010 EdF revised the overnight cost to about EUR
5 billion.
A detailed study of energy economics in Finland published in mid 2000 was important in making
the strong case for additional nuclear construction there, showing that nuclear energy would be the
least-cost option for new generating capacity. The study compared nuclear, coal, gas turbine
combined cycle and peat. Nuclear has very much higher capital costs than the others --EUR
1749/kW including initial fuel load, which is about three times the cost of the gas plant. But its fuel
costs are much lower, and so at capacity factors above 64% it is the cheapest option.
August 2003 figures put nuclear costs at EUR 2.37 c/kWh, coal 2.81 c/kWh and natural gas at 3.23
c/kWh (on the basis of 91% capacity factor, 5% interest rate, 40 year plant life). With emission
trading @ EUR 20/t CO2, the electricity prices for coal and gas increase to 4.43 and 3.92 c/kWh
respectively:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 9 / 12
10. trading @ EUR 20/t CO2, the electricity prices for coal and gas increase to 4.43 and 3.92 c/kWh
respectively:
Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
In the middle three bars of this graph the relative effects of capital and fuel costs can be clearly
seen. The relatively high capital cost of nuclear power means that financing cost and time taken in
construction are critical, relative to gas and even coal. But the fuel cost is very much lower, and so
once a plant is built its cost of production is very much more predictable than for gas or even coal.
The impact of adding a cost or carbon emissions can also be seen.
There have been a large number of recent estimates from the United States of the costs of new
nuclear power plants. For example, Florida Power & Light in February 2008 released projected
figures for two new AP1000 reactors at its proposed Turkey Point site. These took into account
increases of some 50% in material, equipment and labour since 2004. The new figures for
overnight capital cost ranged from $2444 to $3582 /kW, or when grossed up to include cooling
towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management, the total cost came to
$3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges almost doubled the overall figures at
$5780 to $8071 /kW. FPL said that alternatives to nuclear for the plant were not economically
attractive.
In May 2008 South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper locked in the price and
schedule of new reactors for their Summer plant in South Carolina at $9.8 billion. (The budgeted
cost earlier in the process was $10.8 billion, but some construction and material costs ended up
less than projected.) The EPC contract for completing two 1,117-MW AP1000s is with
Westinghouse and the Shaw Group. Beyond the cost of the actual plants, the figure includes
forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing. The
units are expected to be in commercial operation in 2016 and 2019.
In November 2008 Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate for its Lee plant (2 x 1117
MWe AP1000) to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners
costs.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 10 / 12
In November 2008 TVA updated its estimates for Bellefonte units 3 & 4 for which it had submitted a
COL application for twin AP1000 reactors, total 2234 MWe. It said that overnight capital cost
estimates ranged from $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion.
Total cost to the owners would be $9.9 to $17.5 billion.
11. less than projected.) The EPC contract for completing two 1,117-MW AP1000s is with
Westinghouse and the Shaw Group. Beyond the cost of the actual plants, the figure includes
forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
project financing. The
units are expected to be in commercial operation in 2016 and 2019.
In November 2008 Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate for its Lee plant (2 x 1117
MWe AP1000) to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners
costs.
In November 2008 TVA updated its estimates for Bellefonte units 3 & 4 for which it had submitted a
COL application for twin AP1000 reactors, total 2234 MWe. It said that overnight capital cost
estimates ranged from $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion.
Total cost to the owners would be $9.9 to $17.5 billion.
Regarding bare plant costs, some recent figures apparently for overnight capital cost (or
Engineering, Procurement and Construction - EPC - cost) quoted from reputable sources but not
necessarily comparable are:
EdF Flamanville EPR: EUR 4 billion/$5.6 billion, so EUR 2434/kW or $3400/kW
Bruce Power Alberta 2x1100 MWe ACR, $6.2 billion, so $2800/kW
CGNPC Hongyanhe 4x1080 CPR-1000 $6.6 billion, so $1530/kW
AEO Novovronezh 6&7 2136 MWe net for $5 billion, so $2340/kW
AEP Volgodonsk 3 & 4, 2 x 1200 MWe VVER $4.8 billion, so $2000/kW
KHNP Shin Kori 3&4 1350 MWe APR-1400 for $5 billion, so $1850/kW
FPL Turkey Point 2 x 1100 MWe AP1000 $2444 to $3582/kW
Progress Energy Levy county 2 x 1105 MWe AP1000 $3462/kW
NRG South Texas 2 x 1350 MWe ABWR $8 billion, so $2900/kW
ENEC for UAE from Kepco, 4 x 1400 MWe APR-1400 $20.4 billion, so $3643/kW
A striking indication of the impact of financing costs is given by Georgia Power, which said in mid
2008 that twin 1100 MWe AP1000 reactors would cost $9.6 billion if they could be financed
progressively by ratepayers, or $14 billion if not. This gives $4363 or $6360 per kilowatt including
all other owners costs.
Finally, in the USA the question of whether a project is subject to regulated cost recovery or is a
merchant plant is relevant, since it introduces political, financial and tactical factors. If the new build
cost escalates (or is inflated), some cost recovery may be possible through higher rates can be
charged by the utility if those costs are deemed prudent by the relevant regulator. By way of
contrast, a merchant plant has to sell all its power competitively, so must convince its shareholders
that it has a good economic case for moving forward with a new nuclear unit.
External costs
The report of a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal
and nuclear, was released in mid 2001 - ExternE. It shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy
incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. The external costs are defined as those actually incurred
in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity. If
these costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from
gas would increase 30%. These are without attempting to include the external costs of global
warming.
The European Commission launched the project in 1991 in collaboration with the US Department of
Energy, and it was the first research project of its kind "to put plausible financial figures against
damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU". The methodology
considers emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk of accidents is
factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste
management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energy
averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges
1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average. NB these
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 11 / 12
are the external costs only.
12. The European Commission launched the project in 1991 in collaboration with the US Department of
Energy, and it was the first research project of its kind "to put plausible financial figures against
Economics_of_Nuclear_Power
damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU". The methodology
considers emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk of accidents is
factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste
management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energy
averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges
1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average. NB these
are the external costs only.
Sources:
OECD/ IEA NEA 2010, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity.
OECD, 1994, The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
NEI: US generating cost data.
Tarjanne, R & Rissanen, S, 2000, Nuclear Power: Lest-cost option for baseload electricity in
Finland; in Proceedings 25th International Symposium, Uranium Institute.
Gutierrez, J 2003, Nuclear Fuel - key for the competitiveness of nuclear energy in Spain, WNA
Symposium.
University of Chicago, August 2004, The Economic Future of Nuclear Power.
Nuclear Energy Institute, August 2008, The cost of new generating capacity in perspective.
Direction Générale de l'Energie et du Climat, 2008, Synthèse publique de l'étude des coûts de
référence de la production électrique
ExternE web site
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html 12 / 12