Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Twitter
Shop
Search
Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

Search Results for All:
(Showing results 1 to 9 of 9)



Nuclear Power: Epilogue or Prologue?

Harold R. Denton

Year: 1983
Volume: Volume 4
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol4-No1-7
View Abstract

Abstract:
Judging by the continuing stream of nuclear power plant cancellations and downward revisions of nuclear energy forecasts, there is nothing riskier than predicting the future of commercial nuclear power. U.S. Nuclear Regulation Commissioner John Ahearne (1981) likens the recent events affecting the nuclear power industry in the United States to a Greek tragedy. Others, particularly other nations, take a different view about the future.



The Valuation of Nuclear Power in The Post-Three Mile Island Era

Martin B. Zimmerman

Year: 1983
Volume: Volume 4
Number: Number 2
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol4-No2-3
View Abstract

Abstract:
On March 28, 1979, an event at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear plant of the General Public Utilities Corporation placed the future of nuclear power in the United States in doubt. The "transient" that led to the partial melting of the cladding around the fuel rods was to create concern in the nuclear industry and in the public at large about the safety, costs, and acceptability of nuclear power. While the impressionistic evidence is that TMI has caused great problems for the industry, there is little systematic evidence that this is the case. What real damage did the accident do to the prospects for nuclear power in the United States?The potential damages to the nuclear industry were of several varieties. First the accident might have caused people to reevaluate the safety of nuclear reactors.



Nuclear Construction Lead Times: Analysis of Past Trends and Outlook for the Future

Marcy A. Radlauer, David S. Bauman, and. Stephen W. Chapel

Year: 1985
Volume: Volume 6
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol6-No1-6
View Abstract

Abstract:
Cost, duration, and other uncertainties of nuclear construction have recently been in the forefront of the news. Tales of mismanagement, inconsistent quality assurance, and utility financial woes have prompted many to ask why it takes so long and costs so much to build a nuclear power plant, and what the outlook is for plants currently under construction.



Nuclear Energy After Chernobyl: Views from Four Countries

Ulf Hansen, Christine Chapuis, Thomas J. Connolly and Arto Lepisto

Year: 1988
Volume: Volume 9
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No1-3
View Abstract

Abstract:
At the end of 1986, 397 nuclear power plants with a total of 274 GW were in operation worldwide. Their electricity generation was equivalent to burning 500 million tons of coal or 7 million barrels per day of oil, roughly 40 percent of the OPEC output. When the 134GW under construction are finished, uranium-based electricity will substitute some 850 million tons of coal equivalent (mtce) per year. Nuclear power is now the largest primary energy source for electricity generation in the twelve countries of the European Community.



Chapter 23 - The Expanding Decommissioning Focus: A Comparison of Coal and Nuclear Costs

Daniel H. Williams

Year: 1991
Volume: Volume 12
Number: Special Issue
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol12-NoSI-23
View Abstract

Abstract:
Are nuclear power plants the only industrial facilities that deserve decommissioning attention? Absent the radiation hazards of nuclear facilities, does it matter if other types of industrial equipment are decommissioned? If they are decommissioned, is the cost and effort large enough to really worry about? Daniel Williams examines these and other questions; by comparing the costs of decommissioning at comparable coal and nuclear power plants. Williams argues that the nuclear industry is setting the standard among industries in planning and preparing for decommissioning, and that the nuclear experience provides information that can be applied to the decommissioning of all types of facilities.



The Risk of Early Retirement of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants under Electricity Deregulation and CO2 Emission Reductions

Geoffrey S. Rothwell

Year: 2000
Volume: Volume21
Number: Number 3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol21-No3-3
View Abstract

Abstract:
During the next decade, most states in the USA will deregulate electricity generation. Nuclear power plants that were ordered and built in a regulated environment will continue to be regulated as nuclear facilities. However, under state deregulation the price they receive for their electricity will be set largely in non-regulated markets. This paper examines the competitiveness of the nuclear power industry with a probabilistic model to identify which nuclear power units face the highest risk of early retirement under deregulation. Projected outputs under both average-cost and marginal-cost pricing are compared with expected generation under continued rate-of-return regulation. Nuclear units at risk of early retirement are in regions with the lowest forecast prices or are old plants. But, if CO2 regulation targets an emission reduction to 9 % below projected 2010 levels (projected to be 24% above 1990 levels), there are only a few units at risk of early retirement after 2015.



A Real Options Approach to Evaluating New Nuclear Power Plants

Geoffrey Rothwell

Year: 2006
Volume: Volume 27
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol27-No1-3
View Abstract

Abstract:
Although nuclear power plants are being built in Asia, they have not been ordered in the U.S. since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. For many reasons, new attention is being given to light water reactors. Currently- operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. were built under rate-of-return regulation. Now, new nuclear power plants must compete in power markets. This paper models the net present value of building an Advanced Boiling Water Reactor in Texas using a real options approach to determine the risk premium associated with net revenue uncertainty. It finds that a cost of about $1,200 per kilowatt-electric (including financing costs) for advanced light water nuclear power plants could trigger new orders. On the other hand, owner-operators might be willing to pay higher prices for nuclear megawatts if methods for mitigating price, cost, and capacity risk through contracts or real assets could be found.



The Impact of Climate Change on Nuclear Power Supply

Kristin Linnerud, Torben K. Mideksa and Gunnar S. Eskeland

Year: 2011
Volume: Volume 32
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol32-No1-6
View Abstract

Abstract:
A warmer climate may result in lower thermal efficiency and reduced load--including shutdowns--in thermal power plants. Focusing on nuclear power plants, we use different European datasets and econometric strategies to identify these two supply-side effects. We find that a rise in temperature of 1rC reduces the supply of nuclear power by about 0.5% through its effect on thermal efficiency; during droughts and heat waves, the production loss may exceed 2.0% per degree Celsius because power plant cooling systems are constrained by physical laws, regulations and access to cooling water. As climate changes, one must consider measures to protect against and/or to adapt to these impacts.



Nuclear Capacity Auctions

Sven-Olof Fridolfsson and Thomas P. Tangeras

Year: 2015
Volume: Volume 36
Number: Number 3
DOI: 10.5547/01956574.36.3.sfri
View Abstract

Abstract:
We propose nuclear capacity auctions as a means to correcting the incentives for investing in nuclear power. In particular, capacity auctions open the market for large-scale entry by outside firms. Requiring licensees to sell a share of capacity as virtual power plant contracts increases auction efficiency by mitigating incumbent producers' incentive to bid for market power. A motivating example is Sweden's policy reversal to allow new nuclear power to replace old reactors.





Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

 





function toggleAbstract(id) { alert(id); }