Economics of Nuclear Technology

The Economics of Nuclear Powerthe cost of the electricity produced.
Electricity GenerationThe back-end of the fuel cycle, including spent
Nuclear Technology can also be used to producefuel storage or disposal in a waste repository,
ELECTRICITY which is very important accordingcontributes up to another 10% to the overall
to economical condition of a country. Nuclear plantcosts per kWh, - less if there is direct disposal of
can produce more electricity than thermal orspent fuel rather than reprocessing. The $18 billion
hydro electric plant.US spent fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent
Isotope produced using Nuclear Technology iskWh levy.
used in many chemical and pharma companies.French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents
1)Nuclear power is cost competitive with otherkWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57.
forms of electricity generation, except whereNuclear is favourable because of the large,
there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.standardised plants used.
2)Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minorThe cost of nuclear power generation has been
proportion of total generating costs, though capitaldropping over the last decade. This is because
costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants.declining fuel (including enrichment), operating and
3)In assessing the cost competitiveness ofmaintenance costs, while the plant concerned has
nuclear energy, decommissioning and wastebeen paid for, or at least is being paid off. In
disposal costs are taken into account.general the construction costs of nuclear power
The relative costs of generating electricity fromplants are significantly higher thanfor coal- or
coal, gas and nuclear plants vary considerablygas-fired plants because of the need to use
depending on location. Coal is, and will probablyspecial materials, and to incorporate sophisticated
remain, economically attractive in countries suchsafety features and back-up control equipment.
as China, the USA and Australia with abundantThese contribute much of the nuclear generation
and accessible domestic coal resources as long ascost, but once the plant is built the variables are
carbon emissions are cost-free. Gas is alsominor.
competitive for base-load power in many places,In the past, long construction periods have pushed
particularly using combined-cycle plants, thoughup financing costs. In Asia construction times have
rising gas prices have removed much of thetended to be shorter, for instance the
advantage.new-generation 1300 MWe Japanese reactors
Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitivewhich began operating in 1996 and 1997 were built
with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despitein a little over four years.
relatively high capital costs and the need toOverall, OECD studies in teh 1990s showed a
internalise all waste disposal and decommissioningdecreasing advantage of nuclear over coal. This
costs. If the social, health and environmental coststrend was largely due to a decline in fossil fuel
of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclearprices in the 1980s, and easy access to low-cost,
is outstanding.clean coal, or gas. In the 1990s gas
External costscombined-cycle technology with low fuel prices
The report of a major European study of thewas often the lowest cost option in Europe and
external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing onNorth America. But the picture is changing.
coal and nuclear, was released in mid 2001 -Future cost competitiveness
ExternE. It shows that in clear cash terms nuclearThe OECD does not expect investment costs in
energy incurs about one tenth of the costs ofnew nuclear generating plants to rise, as advanced
coal. The external costs are defined as thosereactor designs become standardised.
actually incurred in relation to health and theThe future competitiveness of nuclear power will
environment and quantifiable but not built into thedepend substantially on the additional costs which
cost of the electricity. If these costs were in factmay accrue to coal generating plants. It is
included, the EU price of electricity from coaluncertain how the real costs of meeting targets
would double and that from gas would increasefor reducing sulphur dioxide and greenhouse gas
30%. These are without attempting to includeemissions will be attributed to fossil fuel plants.
global warming.Overall, and under current regulatory measures,
The European Commission launched the project inthe OECD expects nuclear to remain economically
1991 in collaboration with the US Department ofcompetitive with fossil fuel generation, except in
Energy, and it was the first research project ofregions where there is direct access to low cost
its kind "to put plausible financial figures againstfossil fuels.
damage resulting from different forms ofIn Australia, for example, coal-fired generating
electricity production for the entire EU". Theplants are close to both the mines supplying them
methodology considers emissions, dispersion andand the main population centres, and large
ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk ofvolumes of gas are available on low cost,
accidents is factored in along with high estimateslong-term contracts.
of radiological impacts from mine tailings (wasteA 1998 OECD comparative study showed that at
management and decommissioning being alreadya 5% discount rate, in 7 of 13 countries
within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energyconsidering nuclear energy, it would be the
averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same aspreferred choice for new base-load capacity
hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas rangescommissioned by 2010 (see Table below). At a
1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than10% discount rate the advantage over coal would
nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.be maintained in only France, Russia and China.
Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasingFACTORS FAVOURING URANIUM
efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, inUranium has the advantage of being a highly
Spain nuclear electricity cost has been reduced byconcentrated source of energy which is easily and
29% over 1995-2001. This involved boostingcheaply transportable. The quantities needed are
enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40%very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram
fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8%of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as
increase in burn-up will give another 5% reductionmuch energy as the same amount of coal. It is
in fuel cost.therefore intrinsically a very portable and
The cost of fueltradeable commodity.
From the outset the basic attraction of nuclearThe fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the
energy has been its low fuel costs compared withelectricity produced is relatively small, so even a
coal, oil and gas fired plants. Uranium, however,large fuel price escalation will have relatively little
has to be processed, enriched and fabricated intoeffect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8
fuel elements, and about two thirds of the cost isprice would increase the fuel cost for a light
due to enrichment and fabrication. Allowanceswater reactor by 30% and the electricity cost
must also be made for the management ofabout 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would
radioactive spent fuel and the ultimate disposal ofadd 70% to the price of electricity).
this spent fuel or the wastes separated from it.REPROCCESSING & MOX
But even with these included, the total fuel costsThere are other possible savings. For example, if
of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typicallyspent fuel is reprocessed and the recovered
about a third of those for a coal-fired plant andplutonium and uranium is used in mixed oxide
between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas(MOX) fuel, more energy can be extracted. The
combined-cycle plant.costs of achieving this are large, but are offset
Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasingby MOX fuel not needing enrichment and
efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, inparticularly by the smaller amount of high-level
Spain nuclear electricity cost was reduced bywastes produced at the end. Seven UO2 fuel
29% over 1995-2001. This involved boostingassemblies give rise to one MOX assembly plus
enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40%some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only
fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8%about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of
increase in burn-up will give another 5% reductiondisposal.
in fuel cost.For different fuel costs (fossil fuels) or lead time
Comparing electricity generation(nuclear plants). Assumes 5% discount trate, 30
For nuclear power plants any cost figuresyear life and 70% load factor. While the figures
normally include spent fuel management, plantare out of date, the comparison remains relevant.
decommissioning and final waste disposal. TheseNote that the key factor for fossil fuels is the
costs, while usually external for otherhigh or low cost of fuels (top portion of bars),
technologies, are internal for nuclear power.whereas nuclear power has a low proportion of
Decommissioning costs are estimated at 9-15%fuel cost in total electricity cost and the key
of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant.factor is the short or long lead time in planning
But when discounted, they contribute only a fewand construction, hence investment cost (bottom
percent to the investment cost and even less toportion of bars). Increasing the load factor thus
the generation cost. In the USA they account forbenefits nuclear more than coal, and both these
0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% ofmore than oil or gas.