ML19261E959
| ML19261E959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1973 |
| From: | Rathbun D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261E929 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910171013 | |
| Download: ML19261E959 (7) | |
Text
.
10/26/73 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION - DOCKET No. 50-289 Supplemental Testimony on Capacity Factor By Dennis K. Rathbun Contention 10 "The extent to which the NEPA review concerning cost / benefit analysis and alternatives may not be complete in that the following points have not been fully analyzed or included:
(f) Capacity factors" In the cost-benefit analysis contained in the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Final Envircr. mental Statement, the Regulatory staff l
used an 80 percent plant capacity factor, defined as the ratio of the average load on a plant for a period of time compared to the gross f
capacity rating of the plant.
'I Operating data from nuclear power plants comparable to Three Mile I
Island (TMI) shows a trend which supports the use of the 80 percent plant factor.
Using data accumulated by the USAEC Division of Reactor Development and TechnologyE, Table 1, following, was prepared.From this table it can be seen that the performance of power reactors shows E
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. Goeratina History, U.S. Nuclear Power Reactors 1972, Table 8, WASH 1203-72, (1972).
1483 257 79101.71O/}
a steady improvement with time of operation. Table 1 includes data for reactors believed to be most ccmparable to TMI-- i.e., base-load water cooled rea: tors with gross rated generating capacity over 450 megawatts.
This data shows that the capacity factor reaches an average of around 80 percent af ter four years of operation.
Based on the common practice of the nuclear power industry to uti-lize an 80 percent plant factor in calculations and the trend of the data accumulated by operating experience; the use of an 80 percent plant factor in the original environmental review of the TMI plant completed in December,1972, seems reasonable.
Another apprc;;h has been developed by the staff for computing the sensitivity of generating costs of alternatives at plant capacity factors below 80 percent. By leaving capacity factor variable in present worth calculations of the costs of alternatives, it is possible to determine the lowest capacity factor over the operating life of the plant at which the nuclear plant can supply electricity at lower cost than either the coal or oil fuel alternative.
For the TMI plant, the choice of the nuclear fuel alternative is the least expensive alternative for nuclear plant capacity factors down to 40 percent. The methodology is outlined below.
Cost estimates for the TMI plant, Units 1 and 2 combined, including fuel costs, operation and maintenance expenses for nuclear, coal, and oil alternatives were supplied by the applicant and are reasonable, as follows:
~'
I 483 i!S8 O
Nuclear
$698,000,000 Coal
$561,000,000 Oil
$374,000,000 Annual fuel expenses depend upon the unit cost of the fuel; also, over a broad range of generated output, the annual fuel expenses are assumed directly proportional to the plant capacity factor. Estimates of annual fuel expenses as a function of piant capacity factor are given below.
Nuclear ($20,300,000 x % Capacity Factor) per year Coal
($57,700,000 x % Capacity Factor) per year Oil
($112,000,000 x % Capacity Factor) per year A certain amount of annual operation and maintenance expenses are necessary regardless of whethar a plant is run or not. There is also a component of annual operation and maintenance expense which increases with increasing plant capacity factor. Annual operation and maintenance expenses are tabulated below.
Nuclear ($7,120,000) per year Coal
($3,190,000 + $3,900,000 x Capacity Factor) per year Oil
($2,660,000 + $3,120,000 x Capacity Factor) per year The costs of alternative methods of generating electricity are compared on a present value basis using a 3u year plant life and a discount factor of 8.75%. The variable term in the present worth cal-culation is dependent upon the plant capacity factor.
1483 259
Present Value Calculatiens for 30 Years of Alternatives Alternative I:
Nuclear Fuel Plant Constant Variable _
Capital Cost
$697,000,000 Operation & Maintenance
$ 74,800,000 Fuel Cost
$213,000,000 x " Caoacity Fac to r_
Total Costs
$771,800,000 + $213,000,000 x " Capacity Factor Alternative II:
Coal Fuel Plant Constant Variable Capital Cost
$561,000,000 Operation & Maintenance
$ 33,500,000
$ 41,000,000 x % Capacity Factor Fuel Cost
$606,000,000 x % Caoacity Factor Total Costs
$594,500,000 + $647,000,000 x % Capacity Factor Alternative III:
Oil Fuel Plant Constant Variable Capital Cost
$374,000,000 Operation & Maintenance
$ 27,900,000 32,800,000 x % Capacity Factor Fuel Cost
$1,179,800,000 x ". Caoacity Factor
~
Total Costs
$401,900,000 + $1,212,600,000 x % Capacity Factor The total present value costs of alternatives is a linear equation with capacity factor as an independent varinle. The present value costs of alternatives are plotted in Figure 1.
The data plotted on 1483 260
. t the graph demonstrate that operatici of the nuclear plant over a 30 year period is less expensive than an oil fired plant at capacity factor greater than 37 percent. The nuclear plant is a less expensive generating alternative than a coal fired plant at capacity factors larger than 40 percent.
A future rise in the fuel costs for either coal or oil would increase the slope of the line representing present worth of the fuel alternative which experienced the price increase.
Fuel price increases could occur for oil through restriction in the availability of oil from foreign and domer, tic sources or for coal through increased competition for scarce supplies of low sulphur coal. An increase in the price of coal would make the nuclear alternative more advantageous than the coal alternative at capacity factors below 40%.
It is not anticipated that in the course of routine operation the plant would be used at capacity factors as low as are mentioned above.
However, this calculation does indicate that the choice of the nuclear al ternative is not very sensitive to the 80 percent capacity factor used in the original cost calculations in the TMI Final Environmental Statement. Therefore, the 80 % capacity factor is reasonable.
In fact, the staff concludes that cost-benefit analysis is favorable to operation of the Three Mile Island plant using any capacity factor higher than 40%.
1483 261
~
Table 1 PLANT CAPACITY FACTOR FOR C0!C:ERCIAI, PLU;TS OVER 450 >U BY YEARS OF PLuiT OPEPaTIO:G/
Years of Plant Operation 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
94.k San Onofre (450.013, 1968) 21.3 33.6 69.2 81.0 87.5 74.5 Haddam Mech (600.319, 1968) 29.8 73.4 75.0 71.3 83.9 86.0 96.51/
k/
Oyster Creek 1 (550.0!N, 1969) 92.7 74.4 77.5 80.0 70.0 5/
Nine Mile Point (641.81N 1969) 42.4 63.4 60.5 54.7 k/
Ginna (517.11M, 1970) 19.6 57.8 65.6 64.1 80.4 Dresden 2 (800.0!N, 1970) 23.3 37.7 47.4 79.8h/
5/
Millstone 1 (652.113, 1970) 25.9 63.2 54.9 19.7
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Point Beach 1 (523. S>N, 1970) 30.0 76.3 69.4 28.9h/
Robinson 2 (700.13, 1970) 40.7 80.4 33.2h/
Monticello (568.813, 1971) 49.2 74.5 44.85/
h/
Dresden 3 (800.012, 1971) 35.7 72.8 36.2 37.3 64.3 64.9 74.1 85.7 80.2 A Sample than (Exclude Jan-May 1973) 11 11 8
4 2
2 Sample Size 37.3 64.3 57.6 59.9 80.5 80.2 95.7 Sample Mean (Include Jan-May 1973) 11 11 11 8
4 2
2 Sampic Size
- January-May 1973.
five conth 1973 from Nucleonics Week. 6/28/73.
Data for first Other hta from Operating History, U.S. Nuclear Power Reactors,1972.
Sources:
following the plant na:ne are the gross generating capacity of the plant and th a/ Figures initial year of plant operation.
b_/ Capacity factor data for the interval January-Hay 1973.
1483 262
.e
I FIGURE 1
> PresenCbgtz-ar.321. s., ".Ti1 an.C6il ;.1terna tives-toe.
c a r. -.
l i.t e-Thre.t21t.1 C_IS 1h r. Midt_.
1150 Meg} tat uerera_ttr;g_C;p_adt n
]
i I
4 i
L i
T 1
1600 Oi+/-
l
/
/
/
l 1
1400 l
i i
/
i i
T
/
3 t
i co3l 2
/
f:
1200
/
/
i
/
1.,
4 e i
1000.'
mmrA i
4 i.
N.d Os.l' l
,l.
800 5 ::
1
.r.,:
-i-of;;:}
600
- s=
2 tu i
- i:
l l
400 7 i
I J
I 200 l
1 t
3 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PLANT CVACITY FACTOR IN PERCE:iT 1483 263
.