New Nuclear Generation
Resource, Cost, and Performance Assumptions
Current Status of Technology
Nuclear generation from plants owned by or under long-term contract to California
utilities currently provides 11% of the electricity used to serve California loads, with an
additional 2% of generation from nuclear plants depending on the method used to assign
generation to imports.1 Within the WECC as a whole, nuclear generation constitutes
about 8% of the total electricity supply.2 All nuclear generation originates from large
plants that run year-round providing baseload power, using heat from the fission of
enriched uranium fuel to operate steam turbines.
Nuclear generation does not produce significant GHG emissions. Lifecycle GHG
emissions from upstream and downstream processes such as construction, mining, fuel
preparation, embedded energy in cooling water, and spent fuel storage and processing are
not included in the California emissions inventory, and so the emissions intensity of
nuclear generation is zero.3 A 1985 California law prohibits the construction of new
nuclear generating plants in California until such time as the state determines that the
nuclear waste storage problem is solved. The two in-state nuclear generating stations,
PG&E’s Diablo Canyon and SCE’s San Onofre, are permitted to continue to operate until
retired; currently, however, they do face new environmental requirements associated with
cooling water use (see Plant Retirements and Repowering Report). New nuclear plants
have been discussed elsewhere in the WECC, but currently no new nuclear plant license
applications for locations in the WECC have been received by the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Base Case Resource, Cost, and Performance Assumptions
Table A gives the base case resource, cost, and performance assumptions for new nuclear
generation used in the GHG calculator. The reference technology to which these
assumptions apply is a new 1350 MW light water reactor (LWR) using enriched uranium
fuel.4 These costs do not apply to so-called “fourth generation” nuclear technologies
such as high-temperature gas reactors (HTGR) or to breeder reactors, which are not
included as options in the GHG calculator. Nuclear fusion reactors are also not included.
The values in Table A are largely derived from the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007,
which is considered a relatively unbiased source for new technology cost and
1
The CEC 2006 Net System Power Report shows 31,959 GWh of specified coal generation, and 6,191
GWh of coal in unspecified imports, out of a total gross system power of 294,865 GWh in 2006.
2
CEC 2007 IEPR Scenarios, 2009 Scorecard.
3
CARB 2007.
4
EIA AEO Assumptions 2007, Table 39.
performance estimates. However, AEO 2007 costs are generally too low, as they do not
reflect recent capital cost increases resulting from higher materials costs and unfavorable
exchange rates. The Table A base case values are adjusted to reflect these increases.
The nuclear fuel resource is assumed to be unlimited. The base capital cost for new
nuclear plants is $3333/kW, prior to applying zonal cost multipliers (see Table B) and
prior to adjusting for financing costs during construction (see “Financing and Incentives”
report). This value is based on the AEO 2007 total overnight cost assumption, adjusted
for inflation and recent increases in the cost of materials. Base case non-fuel variable
O&M costs are $0.51/MWh and fixed O&M costs are $68.79/kW-year. The base case
performance values are a heat rate of 10,400 Btu/kWh and a capacity factor of 85%,
which follow the AEO 2007 assumptions.
Table A. Nuclear Cost, Resources, & Performance
2008 value
$3,3331
2020 base
case value
$3,333
2020 tech
growth case
$3,333
Range of
2008 values
in model
$3,066 $3,9992
AFUDC
Multiplier (%)
150%
150%
150%
150%
Variable
O&M
($/MWh)
Fixed O&M
($/kW-yr)
Gross resource
in WECC
(MW)
Filtered
resource in
CA (MW)
Filtered
resource in
Rest-ofWECC (MW)
Nominal Heat
Rate
(BTU/kWh)
Capacity
$0.513
$0.51
$0.51
$0.51
$68.793
$68.79
$68.79
[EIA, 2007]
No limit
applicable.
No limit
applicable.
No limit
applicable.
$63.29 $82.552
No limit
applicable.
No limit
applicable.
No limit
applicable.
No limit
applicable.
No limit
applicable.
[n/a]
No limit
applicable.
No limit
applicable.
No limit
applicable.
No limit
applicable.
[n/a]
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
[EIA, 2007]
85%
85%
85%
85%
[EIA, 2007]
Base
generation
capital cost
($/kW)
Sources
Base case:
[EIA, 2007]
Tech growth
case:
[Assumed no
net change]
[CEC 2007
Beta Model,
adjusted for 6
year lead time
compared to 4
for coal]
[EIA, 2007]
[n/a]
factor
(%)
Notes:
1
Base value originally reported in 2005$ in EIA AEO 2007. Cost has been adjusted (a) from 2005$ to
2007$ at rate of 25% per year to account for recent price escalation, and (b) from 2007$ to 2008$ at general
inflation rate of 2.5%.
2
Capital costs and Fixed O&M costs in model vary by region, based on state-specific factors from US
Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS), March 2007. Lowest
multiplier for region in WECC is WY (0.92); highest multiplier is CA (1.20)
3
Fixed and Variable O&M cost originally reported by EIA in 2005$. Costs have been adjusted from 2005$
to 2008$ at general inflation rate of 2.5%.
Zonal Levelized Costs
Table B shows base case busbar levelized costs for new nuclear generation in each of the
12 WECC zones used in the GHG calculator. They are derived by applying zonal cost
multipliers from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the base generation and O&M
costs in Table A, along with financing costs during construction, and are calculated based
on merchant financing assumptions.. Table B also shows the base case fuel cost
assumption of $1.01 per million Btu, with no zonal variation (see Fuel Cost Assumptions
Report). The base case range of levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for nuclear power in
the WECC is $122-156/MWh. Other costs associated with new nuclear generation in
addition to busbar costs, for example the costs of transmission interconnection and longdistance transmission, are covered in separate reports
Table B. Nuclear Busbar Levelized Cost by Zone
Resource
Zonal Cost
Zone
Multiplier
Base Value
1.00
AB
1.00
Capital Cost
($/kW)
$3,333
$3,333
Fixed O&M
($/kW-yr)
$69
$69
Fuel Cost
($/MMBTU)
$1.01
Capacity
Factor
Range
85%
85%
Busbar LCOE
Range
Net Resource
($/MWH)
Potential (MW)
n/a
$132
n/a
AZ-S. NV
1.00
$3,333
$69
$1.01
85%
$132
n/a
BC
1.00
$3,333
$69
$1.01
85%
$132
n/a
CA
1.20
$3,999
$83
$1.01
85%
$156
n/a
CFE
1.00
n/a
n/a
$1.01
n/a
n/a
CO
0.97
$3,233
$67
$1.01
85%
$128
n/a
-
MT
1.02
$3,400
$70
$1.01
85%
$134
n/a
NM
0.96
$3,200
$66
$1.01
85%
$127
n/a
N. NV
1.09
$3,633
$75
$1.01
85%
$143
n/a
NW
1.11
$3,699
$76
$1.01
85%
$145
n/a
UT-S. ID
1.00
$3,333
$69
$1.01
85%
$132
n/a
WY
0.92
$3,066
$63
$1.01
85%
$122
n/a
Notes:
1
All values shown in 2008$.
2
Capital Cost and Fixed O&M Cost by zone are calculated by multiplying base value for cost by the zonal
cost multiplier.
3
Fuel costs are for 2020, and shown in 2008$. Data from 2005 SSG-WI database, and have been inflated
(a) from 2005$ to 2008$ at general inflation rate of 2.5%, and (b) from 2005 to 2020 at an annual fuel price
escalation rate of 3% real. For resource zones containing multiple SSG-WI regions, fuel costs are have
been averaged.
4
Busbar levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) is calculated using cost and performance data from this table, as
well as: (a) financing during construction cost multiplier and non-fuel variable O&M costs from preceding
table, (b) insurance of 0.5% of capital cost, (c) property tax of 1% of capital cost, and (d) income tax
liability.
Sources
California Air Resources Board, Draft California Greenhouse Emissions Inventory,
August 2007. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccei/emsinv/emsinv.htm
California Energy Commission, “2006 Net System Power Report,” CEC-300-2007-007,
CEC Staff Report, April 2007.
California Energy Commission, Beta Model for “Comparative Costs of California
Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies,” June 2007.
California Energy Commission, “Comparative Costs of California Central Station
Electricity Generation Technologies,” CEC-200-2007-011-SD, CEC Staff Report, June
2007.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/CEC-200-2007-011SD.PDF.
Keystone Center, “Nuclear Power Fact Finding,” June 2007
MIT, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” 2003.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Northwest Power Conservation Council, “The Fifth Northwest Electric Power and
Conservation Plan,” July 2005.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/plan/Default.htm.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “2007 Annual Energy Outlook, Electricity
Market Module Assumptions,” DOE/EIA-0554, April 2007.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf.