Pr 07 Environmental impact and cost analysis of coal versus nuclear power
Energy 45 (2012) 31e42
It is deﬁned as the total amount of energy produced during a period of time divided by the amount ofenergy that the plant would have produced at full capacity (times From Table 1 it is clear that coal and nuclear power plants have compatible “overnight” cost, particularly when the cost of carboncapture and sequestration is included for coal power plants. Section 3 , we discuss general environmental footprint of various comparative costs of new power generating plants, and various factors that will shape it in the future: changing national andinternational regulatory requirements for environmental protec- tion, changes in demand from developing countries, the cost ofcarbon capture and its storage, the uncertainty in commodities and construction costs, the electricity market deregulations, etc.
Due to the large size of nuclear power plants in the U.S., even small improvements in operating efﬁciency imply substantial
The main ﬁnding in this paper  is that “deregulation and consoli- dation were associated with a 10 percent increase in operating efﬁciency, achieved primarily by reducing the frequency and durationof reactor outages,” which lead to an increase in electricity amounts of additional electricity produced. Having in mind that the average fuel cost for nuclear plants (about$7 per MWh) is low compared to wholesale prices of electricity, any increase in capacity factors will directly generate proﬁt for the plantowner.
Since the majority of coal-ﬁred power plants represent old and less efﬁcient techniques, average emissions of greenhouse gases will
While the various industry groups are warning that new regulations will cost utilities up to $129 billion,force them to retire one-ﬁfth of coal capacity, increase cost of electricity production, cause rolling blackouts and reduce work-force, the environmental groups praise the EPA work, and point out that the new rules will have large public health and envi-ronment beneﬁts, and that industry groups are exaggerating the cost. At the same time, we owe it to future generations to avoidforeclosing options wherever possible so that they can make choicesdabout the use of nuclear energy as a low-carbon energyresource and about the management of the nuclear fuel cycledbased on emerging technologies and developments and their own bestinterests.” Our analysis showed that nuclear power industry in the U.
The ﬁnal report of the Blue Ribbon Commission was released in
A comparison of the environmental impacts of hydro power with those of other gener-ation technologies, technical report ST3-020613b, The International Energy Agency e implementing agreement for the hydropower technologies andprogrammes, http://www.ieahydro.org/reports/ST3-020613b.pdf ; June 2002 [accessed August 2011]. New EPA rule could lead to rolling blackouts in Texas, PUC chairwomen says. Intelligent design and implementation of nuclear power for carbon free energy: the Westinghouse AP1000, presentation at CITRUS, The Department of Energy, DOE/EIA-0383; April 2011. Resources and statistics: nuclear statistics.