Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nuclear Power, Economics of

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nuclear Energy

  • 2935 Accesses

Abstract

Financial viability is an important consideration when deciding whether to proceed with any large-scale engineering project. Many studies of nuclear power economics have been undertaken in an attempt to predict its overall costs or competitiveness (e.g., [1–4]). While these studies tend to differ in their assumptions about construction and operating expenses, they all use similar frame works for the analysis. In essence, the idea is to predict the total cost of producing electric power over the lifetime of a facility and compare that to the market value of the electricity produced. All other things being equal, the larger the ratio of revenue to cost the better the project.

This chapter was originally published as part of the Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology edited by Robert A. Meyers. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

c:

Onetime costs [$]

Ec :

Cost of electricity [$]

FV:

Future value [$]

HM:

Heavy metal, refers to the uranium and or transuranic component of fuel

kg:

Kilogram

kW:

Kilowatt

kWh:

Kilowatt hour

kWh(e):

Kilowatt hour electric

mill:

$0.001

n:

Number of years

MOX:

Mixed oxide fuel

MWh(e):

Megawatt hour electric

p(t):

Distributed costs [$/year]

Pu:

Plutonium

PV:

Present value [$]

r:

Yearly rate of return in discrete discounting

r(xi,xj):

Correlation coefficient

SD:

Standard deviation

SF:

Spent fuel

SW:

Separative work

t:

Time [year]

U:

Uranium

UOX:

Uranium dioxide fuel

VHLW:

Vitrified high-level waste

xi :

Denotes a cost component

α :

Linear cost escalation rate [$/year2]

β:

Linear cost escalation intercept [$/year]

δ:

Delta function

ρ:

Discount or interest rate [1/year]

Bibliography

  1. OECD/NEA (1994) The economics of the nuclear fuel cycle. Technical report, OECD/NEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bunn M, Fetter S, Holdren JP, van der Zwaan B (2003) The economics of reprocessing vs. direct disposal of nuclear fuel. Technical report DE-FG26-99FT4028, Harvard University, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll J, Holdren PE, Joskow PL, Lester RK, Moniz EJ, Todreas NE, Beckjord ES (2003) The future of nuclear power. MIT Press, Boston (Technical report)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tolley GS, Jones DW (2004) The economic future of nuclear power. Technical report 2004, University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  5. Garwin RL, Charpak G (2002) Megawatts and megatons – the future of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goldschmidt P (2010) Multilateral nuclear fuel supply guarantees & spent fuel management: what are the priorities? Daedalus 139:7–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stern R (2007) The Iranian petroleum crisis and United States national security. PNAS 104:377–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cochran R, Tsoulfanidis N (1990) The nuclear fuel cycle: analysis and management, 1st edn. American Nuclear Society, La grange Park

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brealey R, Myers S, Allen F (2002) Principles of corporate finance, 9th edn. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schneider EA, Deinert MR, Cady B (2009) The cost impact of delaying the US spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility. Energy Econ 31:627–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Deutch J, Forsberg C, Kadak A, Kazimi M, Moniz E, Parsons J (2009) Update of the MIT 2003 future of nuclear power. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  12. White House (1993) Executive order #12866: regulatory planning and review. Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  13. OECD/NEA (2002) Accelerator driven systems and fast burner reactors in advanced nuclear fuel cycles. Technical report, OECD/NEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hannon B (1982) Energy discounting. Technological Forecasting Soc Change 21:281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stillwell AS, King CW, Webber ME, Duncan IJ, Hardberger A (2011) The energy-water nexus in texas. (Special feature: the energy-water nexus: managing the links between energy and water for a sustainable future), Ecol Soc 16(1):2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art2/

  16. Benedict M, Pigford TH, Levi HW (1981) Nuclear chemical engineering, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  18. DOE (2002) Nuclear waste fund fee adequacy: An assessment. DEO/RW-0534, DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shapiro SS (1990) Selection, fitting, and testing statistical models. In: Wadsworth HW (ed) Handbook for statistical methods for scientists and engineers. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. OECD/NEA (1987) Nuclear Energy and its fuel cycle-prospects to 2025. Technical report, OECD/NEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  21. OECD/NEA (1993) The cost of high-level waste disposal in geological repositories – An analysis of factors affecting cost estimates. OECD/NEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  22. OECD/NEA (1996) Future financial liabilities of nuclear activities. Technical report, OECD/NEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  23. GAO (1990) Changes needed in DOE user-fee assessments to avoid funding shortfall. Technical report RCED- 90-65, United States General Accounting Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. DOE (1995) Analysis of the total system life cycle cost of the civilian radioactive waste management program. Technical report DOE/RW 0479, DOE, Office of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  25. DOE (1998) Analysis of the total system life cycle cost for the civil radioactive waste management program. Technical report DOE/RW-0510, DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  26. DOE (2001) Analysis of the total system life cycle cost of the civilian radioactive waste management program. Technical report DOE/RW-0533, DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rabl A (1996) Discounting of long term costs: what would future generations prefer us to do? Ecol Econ 17:137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Arrow K (1999) Discounting, morality, and gaming. In: Portney PR, Weyant JP (eds) Discounting and intergenerational equity. RFF Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rasmussen N, Burke T, Choppin G, Croff G, Garrick J, Grunder H, Hebel L, Hunter T, Kazimi M, Kintner E et al (1996) Nuclear wastes: technologies for separations and transmutation. National Academy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shropshire D, Williams K, Boore W, Smith J, Dixon B, Dunzik-Gougar M, Adams R, Gombert D (2007) Advanced fuel cycle cost basis. US DOE, The Idaho national laboratory INL/EXT-07-12107

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Andrew Osborne, Brady Stoll, and Geoff Recktenwald for editorial comments. Thanks to Eric Bickel and Michael Webber for useful discussions and to Nick Tsoulfanidis for editorial comments and for acting as Editor for this series.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78705, USA

    Dr. M. R. Deinert

Authors
  1. Dr. M. R. Deinert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. R. Deinert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. La Paz Court 7320, Reno, 89511, Nevada, USA

    Nicholas Tsoulfanidis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Deinert, M.R. (2013). Nuclear Power, Economics of. In: Tsoulfanidis, N. (eds) Nuclear Energy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5716-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5716-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5715-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5716-9

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation