29.07.2014 Views

The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

CitationS and noteS<br />

1. At a finer level of policy analysis, a case might be made for particular risk-sharing arrangements between state and<br />

private entities. <strong>The</strong>se risk-sharing arrangements could optimize performance incentives or provide other important<br />

advantages for efficiently implementing a <strong>nuclear</strong> program. Such tactical considerations do not alter the general<br />

perspective that the aggregate social cost of a <strong>nuclear</strong> fuel <strong>cycle</strong> must be evaluated using a cost of capital comparable<br />

to what would be employed by any commercial entity, and that this cost of capital is roughly constant across<br />

<strong>cycle</strong>s.<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> methodology is described in the Appendix. A more detailed presentation appears in De Roo, Guillaume, and<br />

John E. Parsons, A Methodology for Calculating the Levelized Cost of Electricity in Nuclear Power Systems with<br />

<strong>Fuel</strong> Recycling, <strong>Energy</strong> Economics, forthcoming 2011, doi 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.01.008. Although a few parameter<br />

inputs vary, the calculations follow by exactly the same steps. A spreadsheet containing the detailed calculations is<br />

available on the web for download at http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/DeRooParsons_<br />

spreadsheet.xls.<br />

3. In our 2009 Update of the 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Report we calculated a base case LCOE for <strong>nuclear</strong> power of<br />

8.4¢/kWh, which matches the figure reported here. <strong>The</strong> key inputs to the two calculations are the same, although<br />

there are some minor differences in a few inputs and in the format of the calculation and therefore the outputs are<br />

not strictly comparable. <strong>The</strong> main difference in format comes from the fact that the Update calculation uses a nominal<br />

Weighted Average Cost of Capital of 10% and an inflation rate of 3%, while the calculations in this report are done<br />

in real terms. <strong>The</strong>refore we use the equivalent real Weighted Average Cost of Capital of 7.6% as our discount rate.<br />

4. De Roo, Guillaume, Economics of Nuclear <strong>Fuel</strong> Cycles: Option Valuation and Neutronics Simulation of Mixed Oxide<br />

<strong>Fuel</strong>s, Masters <strong>The</strong>sis, <strong>MIT</strong>, 2009.<br />

5. In the Fast Reactor Re<strong>cycle</strong>, spent fast reactor fuel is also reprocessed and the separated transuranics and uranium<br />

mixture is once again fabricated into fuel for another pass through a fast reactor. To a first order approximation, the<br />

LCOE will be the same whether the fast reactor uses transuranics separated out from spent UOX fuel or a mixture of<br />

transuranics and uranium separated out from spent fast reactor fuel.<br />

chapter 7: economics 109

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!