Tidal Current Energy

Nuclear Power (Fission)
generated from different technologies (nuclear, coal and gas) for plants commencing
operation in 2015.
The three technologies were analyzed using an 8% discount rate. This discount
rate was considered by the French Planning Office to be compatible with
the current profitability requirements of the electricity sector. At a 90% load
capacity factor and with a €20 per tonne of CO 2 cost (the latter considered to be
realistic in a post-Kyoto world), nuclear is the most competitive technology. At
an 11% discount rate the costs for all of the technologies are very similar before
carbon costs are added.
The other key variable for the competitiveness of nuclear is the load factor.
If nuclear operates for less than 5000 hours per year then it is less competitive
than gas plants. In practice, nuclear tends to run at baseload and operates for
around 8000 hours per year. For a nuclear plant to run for as few as 5000 hours
would assume significant periods of unplanned outage.
3.6 . The future of nuclear power (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) [7]
This report was an interdisciplinary study published in 2003. Its key conclusions
are that nuclear power is not currently an economically competitive
choice. Moreover, unlike other energy technologies, nuclear power requires
significant government involvement because of safety, proliferation and waste
concerns. If, in the future, carbon dioxide emissions carry a significant price,
however, nuclear energy could be an important option for generating electricity.
The nuclear option should be retained, precisely because it is an important
carbon-free source of power that can potentially make a significant contribution
to future electricity supply.
The conclusions were based on a model to evaluate the real cost of electricity
from nuclear power versus pulverized coal plants and natural gas combined
cycle plants (at various projected levels of real lifetime prices for natural gas),
over their economic lives. These technologies are most widely used today and,
without a carbon tax or its equivalent, are less expensive than many renewable
technologies. The cost model uses assumptions that commercial investors
would be expected to use today, with parameters based on actual experience
rather than engineering estimates of what might be achieved under ideal conditions;
it compares the constant or levelized price of electricity over the life of a
power plant that would be necessary to cover all operating expenses and taxes,
and provide an acceptable return to investors. The comparative figures assume
an 85% capacity factor and a 40-year economic life for the nuclear plant, reflect
economic conditions in the USA, and consider a range of projected improvements
in nuclear cost factors.
Reductions in costs can be brought about as a result of reducing construction
cost by 25%, construction time from five to four years, operating and maintenance
costs and the cost of capital to that for gas and coal. This would reduce
levelized nuclear costs from 6.7 to 4.2 US cents per kilowatt hour, which would
be comparable with coal- and gas-fired generation, assuming moderate gas
51