Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology pp 1–15Cite as

Nuclear Power, Economics of

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 115 Accesses

Definition of the Subject

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 [1–4]. While these studies tend to differ in their assumptions about construction and operating expenses, they all use similar frameworks 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.

Introduction

Economic assessments of nuclear power tend to be complicated, not just because of the number of components that have to be factored in Fig. 1. The costs of any large project also depend on how it is financed and whether this is done through the issuing of bonds by the entity...

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

Abbreviations

c:

Onetime costs [$]

Ce :

Cost of electricity [$]

Ep :

Electricity production [kW(e)]

FV:

Future value in constant dollars [$]

FV’:

Future value in nominal dollars [$]

HM:

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

i:

Inflation rate per year

kg:

Kilogram

kW:

Kilowatt

kWh:

Kilowatt hour

kWh(e):

Kilowatt hour electric

mill:

$ 0.001

MOX:

Mixed oxide fuel

MWh(e):

Megawatt hour electric

n:

Number of years

p(t):

Distributed costs [$/year]

Pu:

Plutonium

PV:

Present value [$]

r:

Nominal yearly rate of return in discrete discounting

r(xi,xj):

Correlation coefficient

SD:

Standard deviation

SF:

Spent fuel (also called used nuclear fuel; SF will be used in this work)

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:

Real discount or interest rate [1/year]

References

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  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, Boston, Technical report

    Google Scholar 

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

    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. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:377–382

    Article  CAS  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, London

    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, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  12. Executive Order #12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (1993)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hannon B (1982) Energy discounting. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 21:281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stillwell AS, King CW, Webber ME, Duncan IJ, Hardberger A (2010) The energy-water nexus in Texas. Ecol Soci 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. DOE/Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, DC, DEO/RW-0534

    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. OECD/NEA, Paris, Technical report

    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. OECD/NEA, Paris, Technical report

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 Press, 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, Washington, DC, INL/EXT-07-12107

    Book  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 Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, 80401, USA

    M. R. Deinert

Authors
  1. 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. Ramtech Ltd., Larkspur, California, USA

    Robert A. Meyers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Deinert, M.R. (2016). Nuclear Power, Economics of. In: Meyers, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_33-3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_33-3

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2493-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Earth and Environm. ScienceReference Module Physical and Materials ScienceReference Module Earth and Environmental Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation