Economic Competitiveness of New (3rd Generation) Nuclear Plants: a French and European perspective

摘要

This paper first presents the main results of the recent (2003) DIDEME study on the reference costs of electricity production in France, which is essentially performed from an investor standpoint and concludes, for base-load generation units starting operation around 2015, that nuclear power, with a levelised generation cost of 28.4 /MWh, is more competitive than coal-fired plants (32 /MWh) or combined cycle gas turbines (35 /MWh). Details are provided on the levelised kWh cost structure of 3rd generation nuclear plants and its underlying technical-economic basis (investment cost based on the considered scenario of a series of 10 EPR units including a "demonstrator", O&M costs based on the feedback of the 1300 MWe and N4 units of EDF and the improvements implemented in the EPR, ...). These results are then put into perspective with the ones of other recent European economic studies (UK, Finland) to show that 3rd generation nuclear power is an economically competitive choice for baseload generation in the European electricity market and will see its competitiveness against fossil-fuel-fired plants further boosted with the progressive internalization, starting in 2005 in the EU, of the greenhouse-gas emission cost in the total generation cost. A question, and a fundamental challenge in view of the huge investments required in the power generation sector in Europe and worldwide, however remains in competitive electricity markets: how to arrive at making them function in such a way as to provide generators with incentives to make the right level of investment at the right time with reasonable returns for investors, and not to impede investments that are economically viable. The paper finally discusses the reasons for the gap between this European vision of 3rd generation nuclear MWh costs and competitiveness and the results of recent US economic studies showing that, although nuclear should in the long run be competitive in the US, the very first new nuclear builds in that country would not be economically viable without government fiscal and financial assistance measures. The gap (a factor ranging from 1.5 to 2.5) between the European and US visions of the MWh cost of new nuclear power plants can be explained mainly by the specificity of a US context featured by a lack references to recent experience in building nuclear plants in the US and the reminiscence of the overrunning in both costs and construction times and the shortcomings in regulations the country experienced during the 1970s and 80s. Half of the gap (a factor ～1.5) is found to result from the higher cost of capital adopted to reflect a nuclear "risk premium" due to this specific US context, a risk premium that is likely to fade away with the successful construction/operation of the first new nuclear plants in the US. Half of the rest appears due to margins taken on construction times and overnight costs to account in particular for this US context and FOAK engineering costs respectively, and/or to reflect scepticism on claims by industry. Part of the balance results from US studies having disregarded the gains in operating performances and costs offered by 3rd generation reactors models compared to those currently in operation in the US.