1 Tarjanne Risto, Kivistö Aija COMPARISON OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS LAPPEENRANNAN TEKNILLINEN YLIOPISTO LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY TEKNILLINEN TIEDEKUNTA ENERGIA- JA YMPÄRISTÖTEKNIIKAN OSASTO TUTKIMUSRAPORTTI EN A-56 RESEARCH REPORT FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
2 Lappeenrannan teknillinen yliopisto Teknillinen tiedekunta. Energia- ja ympäristötekniikan osasto Tutkimusraportti EN A-56 Lappeenranta University of Technology Faculty of Technology. Department of Energy and Environmental Technology Research report EN A-56 Tarjanne Risto, Kivistö Aija Comparison of electricity generation costs Lappeenranta University of Technology Faculty of Technology. Department of Energy and Environmental Technology Pl LAPPEENRANTA Lappeenrannan teknillinen yliopisto Teknillinen tiedekunta. Energia- ja ympäristötekniikan osasto Pl LAPPEENRANTA ISBN (paperback) ISBN (PDF) Lappeenranta 28
3 ABSTRACT Authors: Risto Tarjanne, Aija Kivistö Subject: Comparison of electricity generation costs Year: 28 Location: Lappeenranta Research Report, Lappeenranta University of technology 24 pages, 12 figures and 4 tables Keywords: nuclear power, power plants, competitiveness, electricity generation costs The economical competitiveness of various power plant alternatives is compared. The comparison comprises merely electricity producing power plants. Combined heat and power (CHP) producing power will cover part of the future power deficit in Finland, but also condensing power plants for base load production will be needed. The following types of power plants are studied: nuclear power plant, combined cycle gas turbine plant, coal-fired condensing power plant, peat-fired condensing power plant, wood-fired condensing power plant and wind power plant. The calculations are carried out by using the annuity method with a real interest rate of 5 % per annum and with a fixed price level as of January 28. With the annual peak load utilization time of 8 hours (corresponding to a load factor of 91,3 %) the production costs would be for nuclear electricity 35, /MWh, for gas based electricity 59,2 /MWh and for coal based electricity 64,4 /MWh, when using a price of 23 /tonco2 for the carbon dioxide emission trading. Without emission trading the production cost of gas electricity is 51,2 /MWh and that of coal electricity 45,7 /MWh and nuclear remains the same (35, /MWh) In order to study the impact of changes in the input data, a sensitivity analysis has been carried out. It reveals that the advantage of the nuclear power is quite clear. E.g. the nuclear electricity is rather insensitive to the changes of nuclear fuel price, whereas for natural gas alternative the rising trend of gas price causes the greatest risk. Furthermore, increase of emission trading price improves the competitiveness of the nuclear alternative. The competitiveness and payback of the nuclear power investment is studied also as such by using various electricity market prices for determining the revenues generated by the investment. The profitability of the investment is excellent, if the market price of electricity is 5 /MWh or more.
4 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION PERFORMANCE AND COST DATA OF THE POWER PLANTS CALCULATION METHOD RESULTS Electricity generation costs without emission trading Electricity generation costs with emission trading SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The impact of investment cost The impact of fuel cost The impact of carbon dioxide emission price The impact of real interest rate The impact of economic lifetime The impact of annual full-capacity operating hours PAYBACK OF NUCLEAR POWER INVESTMENT CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX 1. THE BASIC DATA OF CALCULATIONS
5 2 1 INTRODUCTION The comparison of electricity production cost of various power plant alternatives forms the basis for preparation and decision making of new power plant investments. In this study the competitiveness comparison is carried out for merely electricity producing alternatives. The task is to find the most economical alternative for additional production of base load power. Combined heat and power (CHP) plants are not included in the comparison, because the breakdown of their production cost between electricity and heat can be made in many different manners. In good locations CHP plants are competitive, but the total potential of new applications is modest. Further construction of CHP plants will cover part of the future power supply deficit, but in addition new condensing power capacity will needed. The following types of power plants are included in the study: - nuclear power plant, - combined cycle gas turbine plant, - coal-fired condensing power plant - peat-fired condensing power plant. - wood-fired condensing power plant - wind power plant All the power plant alternatives represent today s technology and their output capacities have been selected so big that the scale benefit of a big unit size can be utilized as much as possible. For peat and wood power plants the fuel supply restricts the unit size. Peat and wood fuel should be received within a distance of about 1 kilometers from the power plant site in order to avoid remarkable increase of fuel transport costs. Fossil fuel and peat fired power plants produce carbon dioxide, which emissions should be restricted in accordance with the Finnish energy policy. In the calculations, the influence of the restriction of greenhouse gases is taken into account through the cost of the emission right. The competitiveness and payback of the nuclear investment is also studied as such so that the incomes gained by the investment are calculated on the basis of several different electricity market prices.
6 3 2 PERFORMANCE AND COST DATA OF THE POWER PLANTS The price level of power plant construction has risen remarkably during the recent years. The price increase has been caused by the growth of construction costs, the prices of metals (steel, copper and aluminum) and power plant components as well as the unbalance between demand and supply in the field of power plant construction. In addition, the fuel prices have rise rather strongly during the recent years. The general cost growth increases the operation and maintenance costs. The price level of January 28 has been used in the calculations. The investment costs do not include the value added taxes. The interests during construction and all owners costs are included in the investment costs. Thus, the investment cost equals the turnkey price of the complete power plant at the commercial commissioning date. For the nuclear power plant a construction time of six years has been used and for the other alternatives shorter times. The efficiency of electricity production is expressed as the annual efficiency corresponding to the whole year average. The possible state subsidies (such as investment subsidy) for wood and wind plants have not taken into account. The nuclear power plant is a light water reactor plant (pressurized water reactor, PWR or boiling water reactor, BWR). The capacity of the plant has been fixed at 15 MW representing the unit size category of the biggest available plants and consequently the investment cost per output capacity used in the calculations (euro per kilowatt, /kw) utilizes the scale benefit in full. The initial uranium fuel loading of the reactor core is included in the investment, as well. In this study the nuclear investment cost is based on the case that the plant is constructed at a new site. The investment cost of the plant including the interests during construction equals 4125 million euro corresponding to 275 /kw. All the expenses of nuclear waste treatment (including the final disposal of the spent fuel) and decommissioning of the plant are included in the operation and maintenance costs through the annual payments to the nuclear waste fund. The share of these payments is about one quarter of the operation and maintenance costs. The maintenance investments of the plant are also included in the operation and maintenance costs. The net efficiency of electricity production is 37 %. The combined cycle gas turbine plant is assumed to locate near the existing natural gas network so that the connection fee to the existing gas network does not contribute much to the investment cost. The combined cycle gas turbine plant consists of a gas turbine, a waste heat boiler and a steam turbine. The output capacity of the plants is 4 MW and its efficiency 58 %. The investment cost of the combined cycle gas turbine plant is 28 million euro (7 /kw). The coal-fired power plant is based on pulverised coal combustion and the size of the plant is 5 MW. The coal plant would be located on the sea coast. The plant is equipped
7 4 with SO x and NO x removal units.. The efficiency of the coal power plant equals to 42 %. The investment cost is 65 million euro (13 /kw). The peat-fired power plant is based on fluidised bed combustion. The output capacity is 15 MW and the efficiency 4 %. Peat-fired power plant costs 225 million euro (15 /kw). At present wood is used as power plant fuel only in combined heat and power (CHP) plants. Wood residual chips (forest chips) is the cheapest available wood fuel and it suits best as mixture with milled peat. There are no merely electricity producing wood power plants in Finland, because their electricity production cost is clearly higher than that of other power plants and higher than the market price of electricity. The available power plant concepts are based on small CHP plants with a power output capacity of 3 MW at maximum. If the CHP plants are used as a reference, the investment cost of a merely electricity producing power plant would be over 3 /kw and the efficiency only 33 %. It can be assumed that increasing demand of wood power plants would decrease prices to some extent. In this study the investment cost of a 3 MW wood power plant is assumed to be 81 million euro (27 /kw) and the efficiency 33 %. The experiences of wind power plants in Finland are based on coastal (on-shore type) locations. The level of investment cost has been 1 to 11 /kw since late 199 s to the recent years. The investment cost level depends on the market volume, competition situation, the project size and the local conditions of the site. The increased demand and the price increase of materials (steel and aluminium) and components have clearly raised the prices recently. In reference /3/ the investment cost of wind mills located on the coast is estimated at 13 /kw. Off-shore wind power plants at sea would cost 2 /kw. In this study the investment cost of a 3MW coastal wind power plant is assumed to be 3,9 million euro (13 /kw). According to the production statistics of wind power the average peak load utilization time was 1789 hours per year in the year 26 /2/. The best ten plants exceeded a peak load utilization time of 24 hours. In the year 25 with better wind conditions the respective average peak load utilization time was 21 h/a and the best 2 plants exceeded 24 a peak load utilization time of 24 hours. In this study a peak load utilization time of 22 hours per year is used. A life time of 25 years is used in the calculations. Based on the operation experience of existing wind power plants the operation and maintenance costs vary between 1 and 15 /MWh, of which advance maintenance and fault repair make major part. A bigger unit size and grouping of the plants in bigger wind power parks might decrease the operation and maintenance costs in the future. In this study a value of 11 /MWh is used for the operation and maintenance costs. The prices of fuels have risen recently quite strongly. The rise of the oil world market price is reflected clearly to the natural gas price, even if the influence mechanism has some delay. The price of coal has grown because of oil price increase and increased
8 5 demand of coal. The price of nuclear fuel consists of the prices of natural uranium, enrichment work and fabrication of fuel elements. The increase of the natural uranium price has caused the biggest growth to the nuclear fuel costs. The following fuel prices have been used in this study: nuclear fuel 1,85 /MWh, natural gas 23,2 /MWh, coal 11, /MWh, peat 8,9 /MWh and wood chips 13,4 /MWh /4/. It is to be noted that the price of nuclear fuel is only a small share of the price level of the other fuels and that the price of natural gas is clearly higher than that of coal, peat and wood. The influence of greenhouse gas restrictions is realized through the emission price of the emission trading market. This contributes an addition to the production cost of gas, coal and peat power, but there is no additional cost for carbon dioxide free nuclear, wind and wood power. Future prices of emission rights have been valued at the electricity exchange market till year 212. In the base case of the calculations the forward emission right price of 212, 23 /tonco2, has been used. In one background study of the EU a forward price of almost 6 /tonco2 for period has been estimated. In the calculations the electricity production costs has been calculated with emission prices of, 23 and 6 /tonco2. The peak load utilization times of the Finnish nuclear power plants have on the average been over 8 hours per year and reached even to 84 hours. For the base case a peak load utilization time of 8 hours per year corresponding to a load factor of 91,3 % has been used. The same value has been used also for the other power plant alternatives except for the wind power. In the reality the peak load utilization times for gas, coal, peat and wood plats would be shorter, but for equality the same value as for the nuclear power is used. The economical lifetimes of power plants describe the time period during which the power plant investment should pay itself back. The technical lifetime is usually longer than this. The technical lifetime of a nuclear power plant is 6 years and an economical lifetime of 4 years is used in the calculations. The necessary annual maintenance investments for achieving this are included in the operation and maintenance costs the nuclear alternative. For the other power plants an economical lifetime of 25 years is used and their operation and maintenance costs do not include any special annual maintenance investments. The economical profitability of the power plant investment depends on the market price of electricity. The emission restrictions and the emission price have clear impact on the future development of the electricity market price, which obviously increasing. The forward price of electricity for the year 213 is 53 /MWh and around year 22 the price might well be of the order of 6-7 /MWh. When calculating the payback and other profitability indicators of the nuclear power investment market prices 4 to 7 /MWh have been used.
9 6 The performance and cost data of the power plant investments have been summarized in Table 1 and Appendix 1 presents the input data in graphically. Table 1. Performance and costs data of the power plants, the price level of January 28 PERFORMANCE AND COST DATA OF THE POWER PLANTS INPUT DATA January 28 prices NUCLEAR GAS COAL PEAT WOOD WIND ELECTRIC POWER [MW] NET EFFICIENCYRATE [%] 37 % 58 % 42 % 4 % 33 % - INVESTMENT COST [million ] ,9 SPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST [ /kw] FUEL PRICE [ /MWh] 1,85 23,2 11, 8,9 13,4 - FUEL COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION [ /MWh] 5, 4, 26,19 22,25 4,61 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, WHEN 8 h/a [ /MWh] 1, 5, 8, 8, 9, 11, SHARE OF VARIABLE O&M COSTS [%] 5 % 65 % 7 % 5 % 4 % 4 % ECONOMIC LIFETIME [a] REAL INTEREST RATE [%] 5, % 5, % 5, % 5, % 5, % 5, % ANNUITY FACTOR [%] 5,83 % 7,1 % 7,1 % 7,1 % 7,1 % 7,1 % EMISSION PRICE [t/co2] FULL LOAD UTILIZATION TIME [h/a] CAPACITY FACTOR [%] 91,3 % 91,3 % 91,3 % 91,3 % 91,3 % 25,1 %
10 7 3 CALCULATION METHOD An own-cost power production cost without any business profit and taxes is calculated for each power plant alternative. The annuity method is applied together with real interest rate and fixed price level. The principle of the annuity method is that the annual capital cost is calculated as equal installments for the economical lifetime of the investment. With these installments the investment and the interests will be paid back by the end of the economical lifetime. The real interest rate is approximately the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate, if the inflation is small. On the basis of the nominal interests rates during this decennium the real interest rate has been of the order of 2-3 %. In the base case a real interest rate of 5 % is used which is about two percents higher than the actual real interest rate. In case of 1 % debt financing this would make the capital costs higher than in the reality. Thus, the calculation is to some extent conservative. On the other hand, it is useful to have a small margin in the calculation interest rate which can compensate possible opposite changes in the input data. Alternatively, the margin of real interest rate corresponds to a mild business profit for the investment during its 4 year economical lifetime. In the base case the annuity factor is for nuclear power 5,83 % (5 %, 4 years) and 7,1 % for the other alternatives (5 %, 25 years). The own-cost power production costs can be used for the competitiveness comparison between the various alternatives, but as such they do not express the profitability in the sense of business economy. The price difference between the electricity market price and the own-cost price during the whole economic lifetime will determine the business economy profitability. The impact of changes in the input data has been studied in a sensitivity analysis by varying one of the input data at a time. The profitability and payback of the nuclear investment is examined also alone so that various electricity market prices are used to calculate the incoming cash flow achieved by the investment. The results are presented as payback drawings and the payback time, the present value and the internal rate of return are calculated, as well.
11 8 4 RESULTS 4.1 Electricity generation costs without emission trading The power production costs of the alternatives without emission trading are presented in Figure 1 and Table 2. The cost of nuclear power equals 35, /MWh, which is the lowest of the alternatives studied. The cost of peat power is 43,6 /MWh, that of coal power 45,7 /MWh and that of gas power 51,2 /MWh. Gas power is 16,2 /MWh, coal power 1,7 /MWh and peat power 8,6 /MWh more expensive than nuclear power. The cost of wind electricity amounts to 52,9 /MWh and that of wood power 73,6 /MWh. /MWh ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS, WITHOUT EMISSION TRADING 35, 5, 4, 26,2 1, 2, Fuel costs O&M costs Capital costs 51,2 5, 6,2 45,7 8, 43,6 22,3 8, 11,5 13,3 Nuclear Gas Coal Peat Wood Wind Operating hours 22 Real interest rate 5,% Operating hours 8 hours/year hours/year January 28 prices R.Tarjanne Wood and wind without subsidies 73,6 4,6 9, 23,9 52,9 11, 41,9 Figure 1. The electricity generation costs of the power plants, without emission trading. The capital cost component is dominating in the nuclear and wind generation cost. The capital cost of wind power is about twice of that of nuclear power and for wood power it is to some extent higher than that of nuclear. For gas and wood the fuel cost component is remarkable about 4 /MWh, whereas for nuclear the fuel cost is very modest. Because of the emission constraints, coal and peat suit badly for additional production of base load. According to the national climate and energy strategy of 25 the use of coal should be restricted strongly. (The cost increase due to the emission trading as presented in the results below reveals concretely the decrease of the competitiveness of coal and peat.) Of the emission free alternatives the competitiveness of wood is weak (without the influence of the emission trading). The generation costs of low emission gas electricity and wind power are little over 5 /MWh and thus over 15 /MWh more expensive than nuclear power.
12 9 Table 2. The electricity generation costs of the power plants ( /MWh) without emission trading (5 % real interest rate). COST ITEM Nuclear Gas Coal Peat Wood Wind Capital cost 2, 6,2 11,5 13,3 23,9 41,9 Operation and maintenance 1, 5, 8, 8, 9, 11, Fuel 5, 4, 26,2 22,3 4,6, TOTAL 35, 51,2 45,7 43,6 73,6 52,9 4.2 Electricity generation costs with emission trading The power production costs with emission price of 23 /tco2 are presented in Figure 2 and Table 3. As a consequence of the emission trading the total electricity generation costs will grow to 59,2 /MWh for gas-based electricity, to 64,4 /MWh for coal-based electricity and to 65,5 /MWh for peat-based electricity, whereas nuclear power generation costs remain at 35, /MWh. Then gas power is almost 7 % and coal-based and peat-based power about 85 % more expensive than nuclear power. /MWh ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS, WITH EMISSION TRADING Emission trade 23 /t CO2 Fuel costs O&M costs Capital costs 35, 5, 4, 26,2 22,3 1, 2, 59,2 8, 18,6 21,9 5, 6,2 64,4 65,5 8, 8, 11,5 Nuclear Gas Coal Peat Wood Wind Operating hours 22 Real interest rate 5,% hours/year Operating hours 8 hours/year Wood and wind January 28 prices R.Tarjanne without subsidies 13,3 73,6 4,6 9, 23,9 52,9 11, 41,9 Figure 2. The electricity generation costs of the power plants with emission price of 23 /tco 2
13 1 Table 3. The electricity generation costs of the power plants ( /MWh) with emission price of 23 /tco 2 ( 5 % real interest rate). COST ITEM Nuclear Gas Coal Peat Wood Wind Capital cost 2, 6,2 11,5 13,3 23,9 41,9 Operation and maintenance 1, 5, 8, 8, 9, 11, Fuel 5, 4, 26,2 22,3 4,6, Emission trading - 8, 18,6 21,9 - - TOTAL 35, 59,2 64,4 65,5 73,6 52,9 The power production costs with emission price of 6 /tco2 are presented in Figure 3. Then wood power becomes cheaper than peat and coal power and approximately equal with gas power. The emission trading improves the competitiveness of emission free alternatives against fossil fuel and peat alternatives. The competitiveness of nuclear over gas, coal and peat increases. /MWh ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS, WITH EMISSION TRADING Emission trade 6 /t CO2 Fuel costs O&M costs Capital costs 72,1 2,9 94,4 48,6 1,8 57,2 35, 5, 4, 26,2 22,3 1, 8, 8, 2, 5, 6,2 11,5 13,3 Nuclear Gas Coal Peat Wood Wind Operating hours 22 Real interest rate 5,% Operating hours 8 hours/year hours/year January 28 prices R.Tarjanne Wood and wind without subsidies 73,6 4,6 9, 23,9 52,9 11, 41,9 Figure 3. The electricity generation costs of the power plants with emission price of 6 /tco 2..
14 11 5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The input data always contain to some extent uncertain or approximate values. Furthermore, the future involves own uncertainty factors. The impact of changes in the input data is studied in the sensitivity analysis. In chapters the impact of changes in the input data on the generation costs of the various alternatives are calculated. The following input values are varied: investment costs, fuel costs, carbon dioxide emission price, real interest rate, economic lifetime and annual full-capacity operating time. The power generations costs with emission price of 23 /tco2 are used as the base case in the sensitivity analysis. 5.1 The impact of investment cost The impact of investment cost on electricity generation cost is illustrated in figure 4. If the investment cost of the nuclear power would increase 2 %, the electricity generation costs would increase to 39, /MWh. This is still clearly under the coal- and gas-based electricity generation costs and thus the impact on the competitiveness is small. THE IMPACT OF INVESTMENT COSTS ON POWER GENERATION COSTS 7 ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS ( /MWh) NUCLEAR GAS COAL -2 % -1 % 1 % 2 % CHANGE OF INVESTMENT COSTS Figure 4. The impact of investment costs on power generation costs.
15 The impact of fuel cost The impact of fuel cost on electricity generation cost is illustrated in Figure 5. If the fuel prices would increase 5 %, the cost of gas electricity would grow with 2 /MWh and coal electricity with 13 /MWh. But the increase of nuclear power would be only 2,5 /MWh. The impact of increasing nuclear fuel cost is small, but the increase of the gas price causes a considerable increase of electricity generation cost. ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS ( /MWh) THE IMPACT OF CHANGES IN FUEL COSTS ON POWER GENERATION COSTS NUCLEAR GAS COAL -25 % % 25 % 5 % CHANGE OF FUEL COST Kuva 5. The impact of fuel costs on power generation costs.
16 The impact of carbon dioxide emission price Emission trading improves the competitiveness of carbon dioxide free power production alternatives compared to the fossil fuel based power plants. Nuclear, wood and wind power are carbon dioxide free. Figure 6 illustrates the power production costs, when the cost of emission trade varies between and 6 /tco 2. The values of power production costs presented in Figures 1, 2 and 3 with emission prices of, 23 ja 6 /tco2 can be read also from the lines of Figure 6. With high emission prices the changes of the competiveness of various power production means are remarkable. Nuclear power is the most competitive production form already without emission trading, but its competitiveness compared to gas and coal power still increases with growing emission prices. If the emission price increases to value of 4 /tco2, the power generation costs of gas and coal power grows to values of 65,1 /MWh and 78,2 /MWh, respectively, while the production cost of nuclear remains at 35, /MWh. As a carbon dioxide free production form also wind power becomes cheaper than gas, coal and peat power at the emission price of about 1 /t. Wood power becomes cheaper than coal and peat power at the emission price of about 3 /t. THE IMPACT OF EMISSION PRICE ON POWER GENERATION COSTS ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS ( /MWh) NUCLEAR GAS COAL PEAT WOOD WIND EMISSION PRICE ( /tco2) Kuva 6. The impact of emission price on power generation costs.
17 The impact of real interest rate The impact of real interest rate on electricity generation cost is illustrated in figure 7. The real interest rate varies in the range of 3 % to 15 %. The impact of the growth of the interest rate is greatest for the capital intensive production methods: nuclear, wind and wood power. When the real interest rate is below 15 % nuclear power is cheaper than all the other alternatives. At approximately 15 % nuclear power and gas power are equal. 12 THE IMPACT OF REAL INTEREST RATE ON POWER GENERATION COSTS ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS ( /MWh) NUCLEAR GAS COAL PEAT WOOD WIND 3 % 4 % 5 % 6 % 7 % 8 % 9 % 1 % 11 % 12 % 13 % 14 % 15 % REAL INTEREST RATE (%) Figure 7. The impact of real interest rate on power generation costs.
18 The impact of economic lifetime For the base case the economic lifetime was 4 years for nuclear power, and 25 years for the other alternatives. The impact of economic lifetime on electricity generation costs is presented in Figure 8. The economic lifetime varies in the range of 2 to 6 years. If the economic lifetime is decreased from 4 years to 25 years, the production cost of nuclear power increases only with 4 /MWh and nuclear power will still be the most economical option. For the other alternatives the increase of the lifetime from 25 years to 4 years does not have any essential impact on the results of the comparison. ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS ( /MWh) THE IMPACT OF ECONOMIC LIFETIME ON POWER GERERATION COSTS NUCLEAR GAS COAL PEAT WOOD WIND ECONOMIC LIFETIME (a) Figure 8. The impact of economic lifetime on power generation costs.
19 The impact of annual full-capacity operating hours The impact of annual full-capacity operating hours on electricity generation cost is illustrated in figure 9. Wind power is not included, because its full-capacity operating hours cannot vary considerably. The decrease of the full-capacity operating hours has the greatest impact on the capital intensive nuclear and wood power. When the full-capacity operating hours decreases from 8 hours, the competitiveness of nuclear power compared to gas power remains good with medium class operating hours (around 5 hours). Nuclear and gas power are equal at 34 hours. ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS ( /MWh) POWER GENERATION COSTS AS FUNCTION OF THE ANNUAL FULL-CAPACITY OPERATING HOURS NUCLEAR GAS COAL PEAT WOOD FULL-CAPACITY OPERATING HOURS (h/a) 876 Figure 9. The impact of annual full-capacity operating hours on power generation costs.
20 17 6 PAYBACK OF NUCLEAR POWER INVESTMENT In the competitiveness comparisons presented in the previous chapters the task was to find the most economical option for the additional production of the base load power. Nuclear power is by far the most economical choice in these comparisons. On the hand, it is possible to study the economy of the nuclear power investment alone so that the incomes earned by the investment are based on the market price of electricity. The initial investment of the new 15 MW nuclear power plant is 4125 million euro (275 /kw) and the economic lifetime 4 years. Excluded the capital costs, the annual costs of the plant comprise fuel costs (5 /MWh) and operating and maintenance costs (1 /MWh), which together make 15 /MWh. The annual production of the plant is 12 TWh, which causes 18 million euro annual costs. The incomes of the nuclear power plant originate from the electricity sales income. In the following the payback and other profitability indicators of the nuclear power investment are studied with various sales prices of electricity in the range of 35 to 7 /MWh. When the whole annual production of 12 TWh is sold at the own cost price of 35,3 /MWh calculated in chapter 4 the annual sales income is 42,36 million euro. In that case the investment of 4125 million euro pays itself back in 4 years as shown in Figure 1. PAYBACK DIAGRAM OF NUCLEAR INVESTMENT WITH ELECTRICITY MARKET PRICE OF 35 /MWh LOAN BALANCE (M ) , /MWh YEAR Figure 1. Payback diagram of the nuclear power plant investment at electricity sales price of 35,3 /MWh (own cost price)
LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TEHCNOLOGY RESEARCH REPORT EN B-156 COMPETITIVENESS COMPARISON OF THE ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION ALTERNATIVES (PRICE LEVEL MARCH 2003) Risto Tarjanne, Kari Luostarinen ISBN 951-764-895-2
International Conference Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2002 Kranjska Gora, Slovenia, September 9-12, 2002 www.drustvo-js.si/gora2002 NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT IN FINLAND ACCEPTED BY THE FINNISH PARLIAMENT
Will Low Natural Gas Prices Eliminate the Nuclear Option in the US? A probabilistic comparison of the investment risks of nuclear power and natural gas-based electricity generating plants has been carried
Canadian Energy Research Institute Levelised Unit Electricity Cost Comparison of Alternate Technologies for Baseload Generation in Ontario Matt Ayres Senior Director, Research Electricity Morgan MacRae
Energy 2014 Energy supply and consumption 2014, 2nd quarter Total energy consumption fell by 7 per cent in January to June According to Statistics Finland's preliminary data, total energy consumption in
Environmental report for Danish electricity and CHP summary of the status year 2012 Energinet.dk is the transmission system operator for electricity and gas in Denmark. In accordance with the Danish Electricity
A Cheaper Renewable Alternative for Belarus Issue paper from INFORSE-Europe 1, by Gunnar Boye Olesen, July 2011 Summary Following the increasing fossil energy prices, the country of Belarus is struggling
WHEN AN EFFECTIVE EU ENERGY POLICY? A. Clerici ABB Italy Honorary Chairman of WEC Italy Chairman of WEC WG The future role of nuclear in Europe 1 INDEX 1. General Comments 2. Vulnerability 3. Transmission
Energy 2014 Energy prices 2014, 1st quarter Warm early part of the year decreased prices of coal and natural gas The consumption of coal and natural gas decreased as a result of the warm beginning of the
Alexander Moiseyev, Birger Solberg, Maarit Kallio The impact of subsidies and carbon pricing on the wood biomass use for energy in the EU Meeting of the ECE/FAO ToS on Forest Sector Outlook, June 16, 2014,
10 Nuclear Power Reactors Figure 10.1 89 10.1 What is a Nuclear Power Station? The purpose of a power station is to generate electricity safely reliably and economically. Figure 10.1 is the schematic of
Sweden Energy efficiency report Objectives: o 41 TWh of end use energy savings in 216 o 2 reduction in total energy intensity by 22 Overview - (%/year) Primary intensity (EU=1)¹ 124 - -1.8% + CO 2 intensity
Nuclear District Heating Plans from Loviisa to Helsinki Metropolitan Area Harri Tuomisto Fortum, Finland Joint NEA/IAEA Expert Workshop on the "Technical and Economic Assessment of Non-Electric Applications
Gas-Fired Power HIGHLIGHTS PROCESS AND TECHNOLOGY STATUS Approximately 21% of the world s electricity production is based on natural gas. The global gas-fired generation capacity amounts to 1168 GW e (2007).
OBSTACLES TO GREEN ELECTRICITY GENERATION BUSINESS Arta Denina¹, Janis Zvanitajs² Riga Technical University Faculty of Engineering and Management Meza str. 1/7, Riga, LV-1048, Latvia E-mail: ¹arta.email@example.com,
Netherlands National Energy Outlook 2014 Summary Michiel Hekkenberg (ECN) Martijn Verdonk (PBL) (project coordinators) February 2015 ECN-E --15-005 Netherlands National Energy Outlook 2014 Summary 2 The
Co-firing biomass with fossil fuels technological and economic evaluation based on Austrian experiences Dr. Ingwald Obernberger BIOS Sandgasse 47, A-8010 A Graz,, Austria TEL.: +43 (316) 481300; FAX: +43
P a g e 1 Generating Current Electricity: Complete the following summary table for each way that electrical energy is generated. Generating Electrical Energy Using Moving Water: Hydro-Electric Generation
Loviisa 3 unique possibility for large scale CHP generation and CO 2 reductions Nici Bergroth, Fortum Oyj FORS-seminar 26.11.2009, Otaniemi Loviisa 3 CHP Basis for the Loviisa 3 CHP alternative Replacement
Role of Natural Gas in a Sustainable Energy Future Alexander Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Gazprom Management Committee, Director General of Gazprom Export 2 nd Ministerial Gas Forum Doha, 30 November 2010
Power topic #7018 Technical information from Cummins Power Generation Inc. Evaluating cogeneration for your facility: A look at the potential energy-efficiency, economic and environmental benefits > White
Consumer Cost Effectiveness of CO 2 Mitigation Policies in Restructured Electricity Markets Jared Moore and Jay Apt Supporting Data Consumer Cost Effectiveness of CO 2 Mitigation Policies in Restructured
Biomass utilisation in large scale heat & power production Beijing, September 7-8, 2009 Janne Kärki VTT, Finland VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT IS the biggest multitechnological applied research
Nuclear Design Practices and the Case of Loviisa 3 Harri Tuomisto Fortum Power, Finland Third Nuclear Power School, 20-22 October 2010, Gdańsk, Poland 22 October 2010 Harri Tuomisto 1 Objectives The objective
GLOBAL ECONOMY & DEVELOPMENT WORKING PAPER 73 MAY 2014 Global Economy and Development at BROOKINGS THE NET BENEFITS OF LOW AND NO-CARBON ELECTRICITY TECHNOLOGIES Charles R. Frank, Jr. Global Economy and
Comparison of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Cost of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life- Cycle Perspective - updated version* - Darmstadt, January 2006 prepared by Uwe R. Fritsche
Efficiency Metrics for CHP Systems: Total System and Effective Electric Efficiencies Combined heat and power (CHP) is an efficient and clean approach to generating power and thermal energy from a single
VESI JA ENERGIA VIENTITUOTTEENA Fortum Senior Executing Manager, Hydro Projects Fortum Power & Heat Oy Fortum s strategy relies strongly in Hydro Mission Fortum s purpose is to create energy that improves
Biomass-to-Fuel-Cell Power For Renewable Distributed Power Generation February 2013 The information contained in this document is derived from selected public sources. Ballard does not guarantee the accuracy
EU renewable energy and biofuel targets what will they mean? Background The EU Commission has today tabled proposals for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions a 20% cut by 2020. Alongside this legally
NEW ZEALAND S ENERGY OUTLOOK Electricity Insight Exploring the uncertainty in future electricity demand and supply Preview of key insights: Lower demand growth and excess supply should put strong downward
THE REGIONAL BALANCE OF WOOD FUEL DEMAND AND SUPPLY IN FINLAND Ranta, T 1., Lahtinen, P 2., Elo, J 2., Laitila, J 3. 1 Lappeenranta University of Technology, P.O. Box 181, FIN-50101 Mikkeli, Finland tel.
Fuel conversion at the Vaasa power plant: LARGE-SCALE BIOMASS GASIFICATION PLANT INTEGRATED TO A COAL-FIRED BOILER BioGaC Project, Study Visit at Vaasa November 25, 2014 Mauri Blomberg 1 Large-scale biomass
How competitive is nuclear energy? by J.H. Keppler* The economic competitiveness of nuclear energy will be crucial for determining its future share in world electricity production. In addition, the widespread
RESPONSE TO PUB ORDER 117/06 PUB Order 117/06 Directive 6 6. Manitoba Hydro shall file a General Rate Application for the fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09 by no later than August 1, 2007 which shall include
Increasing Costs in Electric Markets Item No.: A-3A June 19, 2008 Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, good morning. I am here to present the Office of Enforcement s assessment of likely electricity costs in
Fortum Otso -bioliquid Energy sector entering new business era Kasperi Karhapää Head of Pyrolysis and Business Development Fortum Power and Heat Oy 1 2 Company Fortum Getting to know Fortum Power generation
ACCELERATING GREEN ENERGY TOWARDS The Danish Energy Agreement of March 2012 The most ambitious energy plan of the world In March 2012 a historic new Energy Agreement was reached in Denmark. The Agreement
Environmental Product Declaration A clean energy solution from cradle to grave Offshore wind power plant employing SWT-6.0-154 siemens.com / wind 2 Assessing the performance of a wind power plant The environmental
Energy prices and bills - supplementary tables Contents: 1. Energy prices and bills 2. Assumptions 3. Scenarios to 2030 4. Comparison with DECC (2014) Estimated impacts of energy and climate change policies
Development and promotion of a transparent European Pellets Market Creation of a European real-time Pellets Atlas Preliminary pellet market country report SWEDEN Copyright Hjortekærsvej 99 DK-2800 Kongens
S t r o n a 1 Aneta Kucharczyk Nuclear power plants The article is intended for high school students having chemistry classes at both beginner and advanced level. The material described in this paper can
BEATING THE ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS CHALLENGES IN NUCLEAR POWER PRESENTED IN ICAPP 2014 PLENARY SESSION 2, APRIL 4TH 5.3.2014 Mikko Kosonen Senior Vice President, Production Teollisuuden Voima Oyj 2 3 TVO
Western Nevada County Biomass Utilization Feasibility Project Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is woody biomass and where does it come from? A: Woody biomass for the Nevada County project will primarily
Hungary Energy efficiency report Objectives: o 1.4 Mtoe of end-user energy savings by 216, including 312 ktoe in industry o 1.9 Mtoe of primary energy savings by 23, including around 4% in the power sector
Adapting Gas-Power Generation to New Role in Low-Carbon Energy Systems Sandra Scalari Enel Ingegneria e Ricerca SpA Copenhagen, May 27-28 th 2014 Enel Presentation Generation Shift & Market in Europe Enel
Nuclear Power s Role in Enhancing Energy Security in a Dangerous World Al Shpyth, B.A., M.E.S. Director, Government Relations Cameco Corporation Introduction: Should we be concerned about energy security?
SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME [6.1] [ Sustainable Energy Systems] The External and Social Costs of Energy Technologies Rainer Friedrich Universitaet Stuttgart Brussels, February 16, 2009 Social Costs = total
Presentation at NordGen Skog conference Odense, September 13-14, 2011 BIOENERGY (FROM NORWEGIAN FORESTS) GOOD OR BAD FOR THE CLIMATE? Per Kristian Rørstad Dept. of Ecology and Natural Resource Management
Large scale CHP with CFB technology 4 th European Conference on Renewable Heating and Cooling 22-23 April 2013, Dublin, Ireland Kalle Nuortimo Presentation Outline Solid Biomass as Energy Source & Circulating
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Sources in Sweden Swedish Energy Agency www.stem.se Yelena Varasteh firstname.lastname@example.org Slovakia, 24-25 April 2006 Total energy supply in Sweden in 2004 Total
Wind and Energy Markets: A Case Study of Texas. Ross Baldick Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering email@example.com The University of Texas at Austin May 21, 2010 1 Abstract Many jurisdictions
New power cost comparisons Levelised Cost of Electricity for a Range of New Power Generating Technologies Report by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) MaRch 211 New
Western Forest Economists 43 rd Annual Meeting May, 7, 2008 Biomass Energy Economics Presented by John R. Martin, P.E. Pacific Energy Systems, Inc. 15160 NW Laidlaw Road Portland, Oregon 503-227-7611 JohnM@PacificEnergySystems.com
RAJAWALI FOUNDATION INSTITUTE FOR ASIA Electricity Demand and Supply in Myanmar Prepared for Proximity Designs Myanmar This research paper was written by David Dapice (David_Dapice@harvard.edu), of the
Aurinkolämpömarkkinat Skandinaviassa ATY Aurinkoseminaari 2.10.2014 Jari Varjotie, CEO Solar Thermal vs. Photovotaics (PV) heavily subsidized and EU protection customs duties / (ST) very little subsidized,
SOLAR ELECTRICITY: PROBLEM, CONSTRAINTS AND SOLUTIONS The United States generates over 4,110 TWh of electricity each year, costing $400 billion and emitting 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (Yildiz,
Quantifying flexibility markets Marit van Hout Paul Koutstaal Ozge Ozdemir Ad Seebregts December 2014 ECN-E--14-039 Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank TenneT for its support of this project.
A macro-economic viewpoint What is the real cost of offshore wind? siemens.com / wind in the cost debate A broader view of the value of renewables. Globally, installed power generation capacity currently
The new waste burning investment in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Vantaa Energy, Project Director Pekka Karjalainen 15.1.2010 / PK The Vantaa Energy Group Vantaa Energy Ltd Vantaa Energy Electricity Networks
310 Exam Questions 1) Discuss the energy efficiency, and why increasing efficiency does not lower the amount of total energy consumed. 2) What are the three main aspects that make an energy source sustainable?
Finland Biogas Update of the Global Methane Initiative (GMI) Tri-Subcommittee Meeting, Florianópolis Brazil 14 March 2014 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland 1 Finland Finland Surface area 338
GLOBAL RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKET OUTLOOK 213 FACT PACK GUY TURNER HEAD OF ECONOMICS AND COMMODITIES APRIL 26, 213 GLOBAL RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKET OUTLOOK, 26 APRIL 213 1 INTRODUCTION This year s Global Renewable
NUCLEAR POWER OVERALL GOOD FOR THE SOCIETY Finnish German Energy Day, 7th November 2012 Tanhua Jarmo Teollisuuden Voima Oyj 2 EU ENERGY ROADMAP 2050 NUCLEAR POWER IN ALL SCENARIOS Consumption of electricity
ELECTRICAL ENERGY REDUCTION IN REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING Ken Landymore, Director of Operations, Smartcool Systems Inc. 1. INTRODUCTION In the coming decades, actions to limit greenhouse gas emissions
12.5: Generating Current Electricity pg. 518 Key Concepts: 1. Electrical energy is produced by energy transformations. 2. Electrical energy is produced from renewable and non-renewable resources. 4. Electrical
Olkiluoto, 28 October 2008 TVO and Nuclear Waste Management at Olkiluoto Corporate Adviser Nuclear Power Plants in Finland Olkiluoto OL1 BWR 860 MW 1979 OL2 BWR 860 MW 1982 Population 5.3 million Power
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies The Energy Information Administration (EIA) produces forecasts of energy supply and demand for the next 20 years using the National Energy Modeling
Electrification of petroleum installations Commercial justifiable and necessary for the climate No less than 25 per cent of CO2 emissions in Norway come from petroleum installations on the Norwegian continental
Oil Shale, 2011, Vol. 28, No. 1S, pp. 140 151 ISSN 0208-189X doi: 10.3176/oil.2011.1S.06 2011 Estonian Academy Publishers THE IMPACT OF SUBSIDY MECHANISMS ON BIOMASS AND OIL SHALE BASED ELECTRICITY COST
(PIN) Description of size and quality expected of a PIN Basically a PIN will consist of approximately 5-10 pages providing indicative information on: A. Project participants B. Project description, type,
Annual Electricity and Heat Questionnaire IEA Statistics Course Pierre Boileau International Energy Agency OVERVIEW Global trends in electricity production 1973-2009 IEA Annual Electricity and Heat Questionnaire
1 MCQ - ENERGY and CLIMATE 1. The volume of a given mass of water at a temperature of T 1 is V 1. The volume increases to V 2 at temperature T 2. The coefficient of volume expansion of water may be calculated
Kymijärvi II Plant High-efficiency use of SRF in power production through gasification Janne Savelainen CEO, Lahti Energy Ltd. 13.6.2013 Lahti Energy - Forerunner Lahti Energy Ltd. operates in the Lahti
Energy Megatrends 2020 Esa Vakkilainen 1 NOTE The data included in the following is mainly based on International Energy Agency's (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2007 IEA is considered the most reliable source
Our Energy Future ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF LARGE BIOMASS ON THE ENERGY MIX IN BELGIUM 3E 4 November 2015 Antoon.Soete@3e.eu and Ruben.Verhaegen@3e.eu PR108848 www.3e.eu Context and objective of the study
RESPONSIBLE ENERGY A carbon neutral future as a goal The Finnish Energy Industries goal is to achieve carbon neutral production of electricity and district heat in Finland by 2050. We have answered the
Module 1: Introduction to Industrial Energy Management Organisations that successfully manage energy have business processes to plan, monitor, and control energy use, just as they do for other corporate
What Is Integrated Solid Waste Management? This fact sheet provides an overview of options for managing solid waste, identifies the important issues you should consider when planning for solid waste management,
Macroeconomic impact of the Wind Energy Sector in Belgium Report December 2012 For further information please visit www.deloitte.es Deloitte provides audit, tax and legal advisory, consulting and corporate