ML20090A559

Forwards Estimate of Lifetime Costs of Continuing Const of Nuclear Plant Compared to Constructing coal-fired Plant. Continuing Const of Nuclear Plant Will Be Approx 10% Less Costly

ML20090A559
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/10/1980
From:	Nash D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Sealetti D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17198A223	List: IR 05000329/1983008 ML20090A052 ML20090A064 ML20090A067 ML20090A071 ML20090A076 ML20090A080 ML20090A090 ML20090A103 ML20090A106 ML20090A110 ML20090A367 ML20090A377 ML20090A397 ML20090A403 ML20090A447 ML20090A451 ML20090A456 ML20090A465 ML20090A481 ML20090A487 ML20090A491 ML20090A500 ML20090A504 ML20090A514 ML20090A517 ML20090A543 ML20090A547 ML20090A559 ML20090A590 ML20090A594 ML20090A600 ML20090A613 ML20090A614 ML20090A623 ML20090A626 ML20090A631 ML20090A637 ML20090A642 ML20090A656 ML20090A658 ML20090A673 ML20090A698 ML20090A703 ML20090A733 ML20090A741 ML20090A748 ML20090A751 ML20090A758 ML20090A762 ... further results
References
CON-BOX-13, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8005020608
Download: ML20090A559 (3)

Text

_

l,..f e

a?

• • 0 """ ~

v

~

DISTRIBUTION:

t-DOC 4ET Files M

CBAB R/F Y;?....

TERA

'M APR 101980

~

NP.R R/F DNash 1

'f

\\'

fiidland-CBAB k*

WPaton, ELD i

Docket Hos.:

and p50- 29 I

a0-330 c,.,

1; p

ME!;0RANDUf1 FOR:

Dino Scaletti, Project ifanager Environmental Projects Branch 2, DSE r

~

,g FROM:

Darrel A. Nash, Leader Technology Assessment Section Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch, DSE g

[

(.

/

SUBJECT:

REEVALUATION OF COSTS OF MIDLAUD, UNITS 1 & 2

.u i

The attached is our estimate of the life-time costs of continuing with Midland compared to constructing a coal-fired plant instead, using the recent acolicant Hf y estimates of completion cost and completion date.

1.'e estimate that continuing r

with !:idland will be about 13 percent less costly than a coal alternative.

\\

[

ORIGINAL SIGNED QY v

..a, E

Dtrrel A. Nash, Leader i

F Technology Assessment Section in-)

Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch, DSE a

P E

Attachnent I

cc:

D. Sells

.e B. Youngblood b

J. Roberts P

p L

T E

?

ji D,F g,6B,.,,

T. QJ@,...

.=,

i

....%....e.ttsd.s....D..A. i!.u h.............

[

. 9D.0L2.0..........-.M@B5............................2 n................

? - m m =c

( g y

yg g&.-~.yy;9...

r

.O O

9

1. Thre following assumes a total cost'of $3.1 x 10 for the completed Midland Units 1 & 2 with an assumed completion _ time of 1985.

It.is assumed the 2 Units produce 1600 MWe and that no steam will be supplied to Dow chemical.

It is furthe aesumed that the units will operate for 30 years.

The analysis is done on the-basis of 1985 present value.

Further assumptions in doing the comparison are in Coal and Nuclear: A Comoarison of the Cost of Generating Baseload Electricity By Reaion, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.N.R.C., NUREG-0480, and Treatment of

. Inflation in the Development of Discount Rates and Levelized Costs in NEPA Analyses for the' Electric Utility Industry, ONRR, U.S.N.R.C., NUREG-0607.

The costs of continuing construction and operation of Midland are reflected in the fixed charge rate on capitsl, fuel, and operation and maintenance costs.

The Alternative is a 1600 MWe coal plant beginning operation in 1990, the earliest a coal plant could be available.

The cost for this alternative include replacement power cost for the period 1985-1990, plus fixed charges, fuel and O&M for the coal plant over 25 years plus the fixed charges (interest plus Apreciation) on 9

the sunk cost in Midland (1.3 x 10 ).

Continue Midland Fixed charge rate on capital 17 percent; 3% real discount rate; 9

9 3.1 x 10 x.17 x 19.6 =

10.33 x 10 Fuel

• 9

~

14.76

$/MWe1600MWe(8760)(.65)(25.88)=

2.73 x 10 (1.05)5 0&M 9

3.03

$/MWe x 1600 MWe (8760)(.65)(19.6).' =

.42 x 10 (1.05)5 Total 30 year present value 9

cost of Midland 13.48 x 10

• Based on 2% real escalation

~

.o o

\\

BuiN and Operate Coal Plant Interim (1985 to 1990) Replacement Fuel and Operation With the current fuel mix of Con,sumers Power Company it is assumed that it will use one-half coal and one-half oil to replacement energy supplied to generate electricity which Midland would have.

The current average price of this mix 6

of fuel is about $2.40/10 Btu.,This results in a cost of about $.024/kWh. There is an additional cost of variable 0&M of about $.002/kWh. At 8% annual escalation in these costs to 1985 and 2% escalation greater than general infla+ sn from 1985 to 1990 this cost is:

Interim Fuel and Operation:

38.2 $/MWh x 1600 x 8760 x.65 x 4.86a/ =

9 1.69 x 10 Fixed Charges on Capital for 25 years:

3 9

1204' $/KWe x.17 x 1600 x 10 x 17.41/(1.03)S=

4.92 x 10 Fuel, From NUREG-0480, pg. 3 Y (1.03)5=

4.61 x 109 26.55 $/MWh x 1600 x 8760 x.65 x 22.08

/

0&M From NUREG-0480, pg. 3 6.23 $/MWh x 1600 x 8760 x.65 x 17.41/(1.03)S=

0.85 x 109 Fixed charges on Midland which would still have to be paid 10% F.C.R.c_/ x $1.3 x 109 9

x 19.6 =

2.55 x 10 9

Total 14.62 x 10

-Cost if all oil used as replacement 9

56 $/MWh x 1600 x 8760 x.65 x 4.86 =

2.48 x 10 9

Total cost would be- =

15.41 x 10 8/ ased on 2% real escalation and 5 years of replacement fuel b

M based on 2% real escalation and 25 years service ClNUREG-0480, Page A-3, Interest plus d.epreciation (9.57 +.66=10) i I

L