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
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