Economics of Nuclear Power

Abstract

With 12 percent of U.S. electricity now being supplied by nuclear power, Commonwealth Edison has found nuclear plants to be good investments relative to other base load energy sources. The country's largest user of nuclear power, Commonwealth Edison, estimates that its commitment to nuclear saved its customers about 10 percent on their electric bills in 1977, compared to the cost with the next best alternative, coal. This advantage is seen as continuing, contrary to criticisms of the economics and reliability of nuclear power and claims that it has hidden subsidies. It is concluded that there is a need for both nuclear and coal and that government policy precluding or restricting either would be unwise.

Electricity Generation Choices for the Near Term

“…At present, electricity from nuclear generation is less expensive than from coal generation. For example, in 1977 the busbar costs for Commonwealth Edison, an Illinois utility which makes extensive use of both nuclear power and coal, were about 10 mill/kWh less for nuclear power than for coal (27). An Atomic Industrial Forum survey concludes that in 1978 the nationwide average busbar costs were 15 mill/kWh for nucleargenerated electricity (the same as in 1976), 23 mill/kWh for coal-generated electricity (up from 18 mill/kWh in 1976), and 40 mill/kWh for oil-generated electricity (up from 35 mill/kWh in 1976) (28).…”

Extraction of uranium from seawater: chemical process and plant design feasibility study

“…Also shown in Table 10,5-1 are the spot price of U3Og in 1978 ($42/lb) and a coal parity price, which is the estimated price a utility could pay for U3 Oa such that the electrical production cost from nuclear plants is equal that for coal plants. Based upon information reported for the Commonwealth Edison system [33], it can be estimated that in 1977 dollars a UsOa price of $120/lb would establish break-even for the bus-bar generating costs for future plants. This estimate is based upon information contained in Tables 7 and 8…”

Radiation Dosimetry

“…for the two cities, and on that basis use of the linear extrapolation is strongly supported, especially by the cancer incidence data. As I have pointed out elsewhere (3), this leads to an increase of the BEIR III coefficients for total cancer mortality by a factor of about 2 for males and about 4 for females; use of cancer incidence for risk evaluation changes these factors to 4 and 7, respectively. Thus it is in correcting a misinterpretation of the Japanese results by the BEIR III report that the new dose information has the greatest significance.…”

“…Dobson and Straume (Letters, 3 July, p. 8) still are explaining the apparent difference in results for cancer mortality between the two cities as due to the almost negligible contribution of neutrons at Hiroshima; in fact with the new dosimetric data the cancer incidence results in the two cities give remarkably similar slopes relating cancer excess to gamma-ray dose, when the old T65 dose categories are roughly corrected. I believe, however, that everyone involved in this controversy agrees that any conclusions about the Japanese results are premature until the individual doses are recalculated for each survivor in the light of the new findings and applied to results from more complete follow-ups of the study population.…”