Nuclear power cost comparisons

One of Ihe arguments in favor of fuel cells in this kind of comparison is their modular design. We might think of a 1,000 MW power station based on 100 fuel cell units, each delivering 10 MW of power. It may take 8 years to build such a station, at a rale of one unit per month, but each unit can be put in operation as soon as it is completed. In comparison, a nuclear power station also may take 8 years to construct, but it does not start to produce electricity until it is complete. Thus, even if both stations can be built for the same cost, it will be less expensive to build the fuel cell plant, because partial production can start much earlier. On the other hand, thermal power stations have operated for 25 years and longer, whereas the lifetime of PAFCs has not been tested for periods of more than 5 years. 

Figure A7 illustrates the results of the nuclear fuel price sensitivity analysis. This analysis shows that nuclear is competitive with wind, gas CC, and higher priced technologies, such as solar thermal, solar PV, and geothermal (not shown). There is no nuclear fuel price for which nuclear becomes the low-cost alternative. This result reflects the low total fuel cost for nuclear power relative to capital and O M costs. The break-even nuclear fuel price with gas CC technologies is 0.63 /MBtu. For comparison, the DOE default fuel price assumption...

This section focuses in the comparison of results obtained when methods presented in section 2 are implemented to analyse uncertainty propagation in the problem of optimizing maintenance intervals of a motor-operated valve in safety equipments of a nuclear power plant. These equipments consist in two main components, actuator and valve, in serial configuration and working independently. So, the problem considers how the uncertainty associated to some initial parameters in the input vector affect on system leUability and cost (R-fC) as decision criteria. 

As most of the excavated uranium is subsequently used as nuclear fuel, the price of conversion of the ore (yellow cake) to UFg, the price of enrichment (separative work units—SWU), the cost of deconversion of the enriched UF to uranium oxide (or other chemical forms), and the production of fuel elements determine economic factors. In addition, the cost of electric power production by nuclear power plants in comparison with other plants (gas, coal, and oil) and the overall cost of disposal of the waste from all these processes will influence the worthiness of uranium extraction. In view of the rapid changes in the prices of these processes, it is difficult to assess the threshold concentration of uranium in the ore that will make mining viable economically. Furthermore, nations or organizations that cannot purchase uranium... 

The cost information received from three potential SMPR suppliers indicate that capital costs for a 300 MW(e) nuclear power plant would not be more than 50-70% higher than for a coai-fired power plant of the same size. The financing institutions do, however, have more experience of coal-fired plants and tend to consider them as projects which are more easily controllable and having a smaller risk. Nuclear plants are still perceived as riskier, and not unjustifiably, in view of some notable cases of major schedule and cost overruns in both industrialized and developing countries. Two factors which should favour an SMPR project should thus be the overall smaller package that is to be financed (in comparison with a 600 MW(e) or larger unit) and the shorter and tightly controlled construction schedules cited by several suppliers. 

Figure 9 also gives the neutron wall loadings pw and for NUWMAK the value of the power per unit weight p i of the nuclear islands. The reference value taken for the power density is that prevailing in the pressure vessel of pressurized water reactors (PWR). The structure of a PWR is less complex than that of a DT tokamak reactor would be and the materials required for its construction will, with all probability, entail lower specific energy costs than tokamak materials. In addition, the reference volumes chosen here for the tokamak reactors do not include essential subsystems of the nuclear island (e.g., start-up heating, fuel injection, selective vacuum pumps) because too little is as yet known about these. Power density comparisons made on this basis should therefore hardly lead to a pessimistic assessment of the economic chances of the tokamak as a power reactor principle. 

The assessment of operational costs was based on utilities experience of nuclear power plant operation. A goal of EFR design is to avoid there being significant differences in operation and maintenance (O M) costs compared with PWRs, this intention being supported by a comparison of the number and complexity of the nuclear related systems and auxiliary plant. It is an established fact that radiation doses to operators are substantially lower in a fast reactor station than a PWR this has favourable consequences for O M costs. 

Table 11.4. Cost comparison of nuclear power and coal power.

In comparison to the cost of fossil-nuclear energy, solar power plants generate electricity at 12-20 /kWh. When using solar energy, the fuel is free and inexhaustible. Another potential of solar energy is economical if it was decided to cover 10 million American homes with solar roofs, this decision alone would trigger the biggest economic expansion of the decade (if not the century ). 

FIG V-3. Visualization of a threshold effect on the overnight cost. Table V-1 presents the calculations of costs performed with the CEA SEMER code developed for the economic evaluation of nuclear plants [V-3]. A comparison of calculations is made between two sites with the same electrical power the first, with large classical PWRs, the second, with SCOR reactors. This cost assessment is performed with nomenclature recommended by the IAEA. TABLE V-1. ECONOMIC AS SES SMENT - COMPARISON BETWEEN A LARGE LOOP-TYPE REACTOR AND SCOR (RELATIVE UNITS) ... 

The comparison of the three refuelling schemes is substantially affected by the cost estimates for the refuelling machines and by the differences in power marginal costs during outage of the nuclear plant. 

---