Projected Costs of Generating Electricity - OECD Nuclear Energy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7 shows the projected load factors assumed for each type of plant. These form part of the generic assumptions used in each case in the results in Tables 1-3, including the use of different discount rates. Table 7 – Load factors assumed for plant in 2010 Technology % Coal 85 Gas 90 Nuclear 85 Coal (capture & storage) 85 Gas (capture & storage) 90 Onshore wind 30 Offshore wind 35 Energy crops 85 Small hydro 35 Waste 34 Marine 30 Landfill gas 63 Sewage sludge 55 Table 8 shows the projected efficiency factors for fossil fuel plants or those using energy crops. Table 8 – Efficiency factors assumed for plant in 2010 Technology % Coal 46 Gas 61 Coal (capture & storage) 40 Gas (capture & storage) 52 Energy crops 30 The size of plant on which the results above are based varies by technology. Table 9 describes the assumptions made for fossil fuel and nuclear generation. Table 9 – Size of plant by technology Technology MW Coal IGCC1 600 - 800 Coal pulverised fuel 1 000 - 2 000 Gas 400 - 500 Nuclear 1 000 1. Coal IGCC might involve three plants of this size to achieve economies in coal handling. 152
United States The cost of generating electricity from a given technology is driven by the underlying assumptions about capital and operating costs. The United States costs reported here are those used by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) – the independent statistical and analytical agency within the US Department of Energy (DOE) – in their analytical and forecasting activities. Since most of EIA’s analytical and forecasting products address broad issues, by necessity, their cost estimates tend to deal with generic technology forms. Thus, the estimates reported do not reflect the cost of a particular design of any given technology. Additionally, the estimates reflect the cost of building and operating a power plant at a typical generic site. Thus, because of siting issues, the estimates may be greater or less than the realised costs at a particular location. The data presented generally reflect incremental improvements in costs and performance relative to 2003 levels. Estimates, shown in the table below, were prepared by some of the program offices within DOE and/or vendors of the technology. These estimates often assume much larger reductions in costs relative to the ones used by EIA. The larger reductions could be due to accelerated (and successful) R&D programmes and/or major technological innovations. The United States levelised costs reported in the questionnaire for this study also include all relevant taxes and tax credits, whereas the ones computed by the OECD explicitly exclude corporate income taxes and technology-specific tax subsidies. For this reason among others, the levelised costs reported by EIA will be different from those presented by the OECD. Additionally, because of differences in taxes in various countries, even though the underlying cost estimates are similar, the levelised costs reported by various countries could be very different. EIA also assumes that all United States power plants will be built in a competitive environment. Studies have shown that decision makers in such an environment tend to use relatively high discount rates and shorttime horizons compared with those in regulated industries. Investments in power plants must compete with Technology n th of a kind n th of a kind Capacity capital cost heat rate factor (2003 USD/kW) (Btu/kWh) Advanced nuclear 1 167 na na Geothermal 1 475 na 0.85 Landfill gas 1 426 na 0.9 Photovoltaic 1 173 na 0.24 Solar thermal na na 0.28 Biomass 1 308 na 0.8 Wind 887 na 0.48 Pulverised coal 1 127 8 600 na Integrated gasification combined cycle power plants 980 5 687 na Natural gas combined cycle 538 4 960 na Combustion turbine 380 6 669 na Abbreviation: na = not applicable because estimate is similar to the one reported in this study. Note: The cost data includes all contingencies, but excludes “Interest During Construction”. Sources: Nuclear – Data are consistent with Vendor Estimates. Renewables – Estimates correspond to Department of Energy Program Office data as found in National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2003 Power Technologies Database. Fossil Fuels – Estimates based on US Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy’s Vision 2100 Programme. 153
Page 1:
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY INTERNATIONAL
Page 4:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 9 and 10:
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Page 11:
Figures Figure 3.1 Specific overnig
Page 14 and 15:
The introduction of liberalisation
Page 16 and 17:
150 USD/MWh at a 5% discount rate a
Page 18 and 19:
The technologies and plant types co
Page 20 and 21:
locations and/or very favourable co
Page 22 and 23:
conclusions of the study were used
Page 25 and 26:
Chapter 2 Input Data and Cost Calcu
Page 27 and 28:
equipped with emission control devi
Page 29 and 30:
Table 2.2 - Exchange rates (as of 1
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2.4 - Coal plant specificatio
Page 33 and 34:
Table 2.7 - Wind and solar power pl
Page 35:
Table 2.10 - Other plant specificat
Page 38 and 39:
Figure 3.1 - Specific overnight con
Page 40 and 41:
exchange rates, the coal prices var
Page 42 and 43:
Construction time Gas-fired power p
Page 44 and 45:
USD/MWh 70 60 Figure 3.5 - Levelise
Page 46 and 47:
O&M costs The specific annual O&M c
Page 48 and 49:
Cost ranges for coal, gas and nucle
Page 50 and 51:
Ratio 1.9 Figure 3.12 - Cost ratios
Page 52 and 53:
Table 3.11 - Overnight construction
Page 54 and 55:
Table 3.14 - Projected generation c
Page 56 and 57:
Except for the offshore plant in th
Page 58 and 59:
At 10% discount rate, the levelised
Page 60 and 61:
At 5% discount rate, hydroelectrici
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Table 4.6 - Projected generation co
Page 66 and 67:
A CHP plant typically supplies heat
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Figure 5.2 - Levelised costs of ele
Page 72 and 73:
lower unit capital and operating co
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
cost calculation for some 130 power
Page 78 and 79:
It should be stressed that the plan
Page 80 and 81:
Concluding remarks The lowest level
Page 82 and 83:
Portugal Mr. António B. Gomes EDP
Page 84 and 85:
Table A2.1 - Nuclear plant investme
Page 86 and 87:
Overnight Capital Costs: Constructi
Page 88 and 89:
Table A2.7 - Gas-fired (including C
Page 90 and 91:
Table A2.10 - Wind plant investment
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Cost structure of supported green e
Page 98 and 99:
The highest investment cost arises
Page 100 and 101:
The expected development of the per
Page 102 and 103:
● ● Autoproducers. These firms
Page 104 and 105: Canada The electricity market situa
Page 106 and 107: Natural gas - combined cycle gas tu
Page 108 and 109: Denmark Basic data Denmark has abou
Page 110 and 111: In the future, both an increase in
Page 112 and 113: nuclear operator Teollisuuden Voima
Page 114 and 115: these power generation methods. Two
Page 116 and 117: Figure 5 - Competitiveness of vario
Page 118 and 119: 2004. It envisages the gradual incr
Page 120 and 121: Table 4 - Gross electricity supply
Page 122 and 123: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Page 124 and 125: Electricity generation costs The to
Page 126 and 127: photovoltaic device. Finally the su
Page 128 and 129: Table 1 - Installed electric power
Page 130 and 131: Japan Consumers in Japan are suppli
Page 132 and 133: BPE will be established not as a bi
Page 134 and 135: Coal Coal fired power plants have b
Page 136 and 137: A new sewage treatment plant with a
Page 138 and 139: The interconnections between Portug
Page 140 and 141: In order to respond to these basic
Page 142 and 143: efficient energies and is reducing
Page 144 and 145: Liberalisation Basic restructuring
Page 146 and 147: External costs for electricity prod
Page 148 and 149: At the beginning of plant operation
Page 150 and 151: and high ash, moisture and sulphur
Page 152 and 153: The White Paper did not contain pro
Page 156 and 157: other investment options available
Page 158 and 159: The impurities contained in coal ar
Page 160 and 161: “ultra-supercritical” condition
Page 162 and 163: unmineable coal seams. All three pr
Page 164 and 165: Light water reactors require enrich
Page 166 and 167: concerns. Consequently, the natural
Page 168 and 169: generators and power electronics el
Page 170 and 171: conventional fossil-fired plants. B
Page 172 and 173: ● ● very effective and is used
Page 175 and 176: Appendix 5 Cost Estimation Methodol
Page 177: into account in the real price of g
Page 180 and 181: ● ● ● ● Factors under the c
Page 182 and 183: and small power plants. Although th
Page 184 and 185: The general approach remains useful
Page 186 and 187: Two US economic analyses of nuclear
Page 188 and 189: assume future prices follow a rando
Page 190 and 191: The effects of price risk on techno
Page 192 and 193: The option to delay is embedded in
Page 195 and 196: Appendix 7 Allocating the Costs and
Page 197 and 198: Further Fourier’s law for heat tr
Page 199 and 200: Figure A7.4 - The energy conversion
Page 201 and 202: This yields: β = 0.153 α. If α e
Page 203: It is emphasised that depending on
Page 206 and 207:
1 st oil shock 2 nd oil shock Saudi
Page 208 and 209:
Table A8.2 - Expected lower and upp
Page 210 and 211:
Reliability in electricity systems
Page 212 and 213:
is also highly dependent on the typ
Page 214 and 215:
In the ILEX study 5 and in another
Page 216 and 217:
an increasing share of wind is the
Page 218 and 219:
able to work out the optimal operat
Page 221 and 222:
Appendix 10 Impact of Carbon Emissi
Page 223 and 224:
costs of generation. The introducti
Page 225 and 226:
price at 3.5 €/GJ are the next fa
Page 227 and 228:
Figure A10.5 - Steam coal price var
Page 229 and 230:
The longer term impact on investmen
Page 231 and 232:
Appendix 11 List of Main Abbreviati
Page 233:
OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2 rue André-Pas
show all

Projected Costs of Generating Electricity - OECD Nuclear Energy ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?