1	Reactor Economics 2008 Jim Harding National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel January 22, 2008 Washington, DC
2	How Do Current Estimates Compare? What Factors Are Most Important? Capital cost is most important EIA - $2083/kW MIT - $2000-2500/kW (2003) Keystone - $3600-4000/kW (June 2007) S&P - $4000/kW (May 2007) Moody’s - $5000-6000/kW (October 2007) FP&L - $5200-7800/kW (Fall 2007) Operating costs less important but not insignificant Assumptions and methodology often opaque Life cycle cost estimates range from 5-17 cents/kWh Why is this so?
3	The Easy Reasons – for all resources Lack of a consistent economic methodology Capital cost usually stated in mixed current dollars at COD, rather than discounted real dollars Subsidies often included in cost estimates, though they affect price not cost Very important for long lead time, capital intensive units Example: Keystone high case for nuclear was $2950/kW overnight, $4650/kW mixed current dollars at COD, and $4000/kW in discounted 2007 dollars. All the same number!
4	Nuclear Power is Tougher Lack of recent North American nuclear construction experience Historical reliance on “studies” and vendor software Studies often reference each other Software assumes Asian construction practices, and excludes owner’s costs – contingency, escalation, interest during construction, land, transmission, and oversight. Long lead time for recalculating Little incentive to be accurate or up-to-date; no real money being spent MIT chose actual Asian values, but assumed no real escalation Long lead time; licensing, siting, rate recovery and financing uncertainties. Very problematic in states with deregulated retail markets. Escalation during construction not considered; first of a kind premiums and learning curves instead Supply-chain imbalances not considered (skilled labor, sub-suppliers) Transmission costs and lead time usually not considered
5	Recent Asian Experience
6	Major Keystone Assumptions Take Asian experience at face value (important) Escalate at EPRI estimate for heavy construction, 2002-2007 in low case and through COD in high case (very important) 5-6 year construction period and no major finance or regulatory issues; conventional IOU financing (all very important) Use current spot prices for uranium, and predicted enrichment prices for long term fuel prices (not very important) O&M and capacity factor at current fleet average; include decommissioning, capital additions, and A&G; 30-40 year life (somewhat important) Life cycle cash flows discounted at weighted after tax cost of capital (somewhat important; first year cost – “rate shock” - can be twice as high as levelized life cycle cost) No major new transmission required (important, but site specific)
7	Real Escalation is the Biggest Problem
8
9
10	Escalation Likely Worse for Nuclear Industry moribund in Western Europe, US, and Russia since TMI and Chernobyl Twenty years ago (US): 400 suppliers, 900 N-Stamp holders; today 80 and 200 Only one forge for large parts – Japan Steel Works; maybe Creusot Forge (France) Skilled labor and contractor limits World uranium production well below current consumption
11	Recent Estimates Keystone - $3600-4000/kW; 8-11 cents/kWh Discounted real 2007 dollars; would be $5600/kW (16-17 cents/kWh) at AEP escalation rate from 2002-COD Standard & Poor’s - $4000/kW; 9-10 cents/kWh Basis not stated; levelized fixed charge rate Life cycle costs reflect Keystone O&M and fuel costs Moody’s - $5000-6000/kW Basis not stated; operating and fuel costs not estimated Florida Power & Light - $5200-7800/kW Basis not stated; major transmission included
12
13	Life Cycle and Operating Costs Also Vary Nuclear O&M costs estimates often do not include A&G costs Net capital additions Decommissioning Nuclear fuel cost estimates often do not include Current spot prices for uranium Likely increase in enrichment prices Life cycle cost estimates often use simplified levelized fixed charge rates rather than more complex discounted cash flows
14
15	US Projections – Decades Ago
16
17
18
19
20
21	Supplemental Slides
22	Efficiency and Renewables Can Be Disruptive Technologies A disruptive technology is often cheaper than the operating cost of the existing system Demand is not limited to growth in service Efficiency resources cost less than operating costs for existing gas (or coal with carbon taxes); they pay for themselves with +3x more carbon savings per dollar Wind was disruptive from 2002-2005 and may be again Photovoltaics may soon become one Only disruptive energy technologies can grow fast enough to solve climate challenges
23
24	Technical Innovation Driven by Standards
25
26
27
28	The Bottom Line Twenty years from light water reactor technology will be roughly the same as it is today Efficiency resources, wind turbine technology, and photovoltaics are improving rapidly Take one example --- Nanosolar started by the Google founders, backed also by Swiss Re Building two 430 MW/yr thin film PV production facilities this year in Germany and California, using a technology they equate to printing newspapers Currently shipping and reportedly profitable at $0.99/watt (not including installation and balance of system) The cheapest, least risk strategy is rapid development of efficiency resources