Projected Costs of Generating Electricity from Power Plants for Commissioning Around the Year 2000
Main Article Content
Abstract
An expert group of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has updated a series of past
studies on the projected costs of generating electricity. The main objective of the study is to review and explain the costs that would be expected for base load power generation technologies which could be commercially available for commissioning around the year 2000.
The study mainly focuses on generation costs of water-cooled nuclear plants (LWR and PHWR), coal-fired plants (pulverized coal combustion and atmospheric fluidized bed combustion) and gas-fired plants (combined cycle gas turbine systems). Generation cost data provided by 22 participating countries (including 6 non-OECD countries) have been analyzed on a common basis of standardised lifetime levelised cost methodology. The series of reviews shows that the fossil-fired electricity generation costs, projected in constant money terms, have declined during the last decade, as a result of significantly lower fossil fuel prices than those expected in the past. On the other hand, the projected costs of nuclear generation have remained relatively stable over the same period. Thus nuclear power is not at present seen as having quite the same economic benefits as we thought in the early 1980s. Despite this, at 5 % per annum (p.a.) real discount rate, using the reference performance assumptions, most participating countries project nuclear power to be the cheapest source of base load power from plants for commissioning around the year 2000. The comparison is, however, sensitive in the majority of countries to the discount rates, to investment costs and plant performance of nuclear plants and to fossil fuel price expectations. At 10 % p.a. discount rate, the position of the less capital intensive technologies is greatly improved relative to the more capital intensive ones. As a result, only 5 of 14 countries providing nuclear and coal cost data project nuclear power to have a clear economic advantage over coal, and 3 of 9 countries providing nuclear and gas cost data project nuclear power to be cheaper option than gas combined cycle plants.
studies on the projected costs of generating electricity. The main objective of the study is to review and explain the costs that would be expected for base load power generation technologies which could be commercially available for commissioning around the year 2000.
The study mainly focuses on generation costs of water-cooled nuclear plants (LWR and PHWR), coal-fired plants (pulverized coal combustion and atmospheric fluidized bed combustion) and gas-fired plants (combined cycle gas turbine systems). Generation cost data provided by 22 participating countries (including 6 non-OECD countries) have been analyzed on a common basis of standardised lifetime levelised cost methodology. The series of reviews shows that the fossil-fired electricity generation costs, projected in constant money terms, have declined during the last decade, as a result of significantly lower fossil fuel prices than those expected in the past. On the other hand, the projected costs of nuclear generation have remained relatively stable over the same period. Thus nuclear power is not at present seen as having quite the same economic benefits as we thought in the early 1980s. Despite this, at 5 % per annum (p.a.) real discount rate, using the reference performance assumptions, most participating countries project nuclear power to be the cheapest source of base load power from plants for commissioning around the year 2000. The comparison is, however, sensitive in the majority of countries to the discount rates, to investment costs and plant performance of nuclear plants and to fossil fuel price expectations. At 10 % p.a. discount rate, the position of the less capital intensive technologies is greatly improved relative to the more capital intensive ones. As a result, only 5 of 14 countries providing nuclear and coal cost data project nuclear power to have a clear economic advantage over coal, and 3 of 9 countries providing nuclear and gas cost data project nuclear power to be cheaper option than gas combined cycle plants.
Article Details
Section
Articles