• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.18-31
• /
• 1989

To analyze the impact of air pollution control on electricity generation cost, a computer program was developed. POGEN calculates levelized discounted power generation cost including additional air pollution control cost for coal power plant. Pollution subprogram calculates total capital and variable costs using governing equations for flue gas control. The costs are used as additional input for levelized discounted power generation cost subprogram. Pollution output for Rue Gas Desulphurization direct cost was verified using published cost data of well experienced industrialized countries. The power generation costs for the year 2001 were estimated by POGEN for three different regulatory scenarios imposed on coal power plant, and by levelized discounted power generation cost subprogram for nuclear power. Because of uncertainty expected in input variables for future plants, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis were made to check the importance and uncertainty propagation of the input variables using Latin Hypercube Sampling and Multiple Least Square method. Most sensitive parameter for levelized discounted power generation cost is discount rate for both nuclear and coal. The control cost for flue gas alone reaches additional 9-11 mills/kWh with standard deviation less than 1.3 mills/kWh. This cost will be nearly 20% of power generation cost and 40% of one GW capacity coal power plant investment cost. With 90% confidence, the generation cost of nuclear power plant will be 32.6-51.9 mills/kWh, and for the coal power plant it will be 45.5-50.5 mills/kWh. Nuclear is favorable with 95% confidence under stringent future regulatory requirement in Korea.

• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.607-625
• /
• 2021

The objective of this study is to estimate the relationship between CO₂ emissions and both nuclear power and renewable energy generation, and compare the cost efficiencies of nuclear power and renewable energy generation in reducing CO₂ emissions in Korea. The results show that nuclear power and renewable energy generation should be increased by 1.344% and 7.874% to reduce CO₂ emissions by 1%, respectively. Using the estimated coefficients and the levelized costs of electricity by source including the external costs, if the current amount of electricity generation is one megawatt-hour, the range of generation cost of nuclear power generation to reduce 1% CO₂ emissions is $0.72~$1.49 depending on the level of external costs. In the case of renewable energy generation, the generation cost to reduce 1% CO₂ emissions is $6.49. That is, to mitigate 1% of CO₂ emissions at the total electricity generation of 353 million MWh in 2020 in Korea, the total generation costs range for nuclear power is $254 million~$526 million for the nuclear power, and the cost for renewable energy is $2.289 billion for renewable energy. Hence, we can conclude that, in Korea, nuclear power generation is more cost-efficient than renewable energy generation in mitigating CO₂ emissions, even with the external costs of nuclear power generation.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.171-185
• /
• 1989

On the basis of equal health hazard risk, economic assessment of nuclear was compared with that of coal for the expansion planning of electric power generation in the year 2000. In comparing health risks, the risk of coal was roughly ten times higher than that of nuclear according to various previous risk assessments of energy system. The zero risk condition can never be achievable. Therefore, only excess relative health risk of coal over nuclear was considered as social cost. The social cost of health risk was estimated by calculation of mortality and morbidity costs. Mortality cost was ＄250,000 and morbidity cost was ＄90,000 in the year 2000.(1986US＄) Through Cost/Benefit Analysis, the optimal emission standards of coal-fired power generation were predicted. These were obtained at the point of least social cost for power generation. In the year 2000, the optimal emission standard of SOx was analyzed as 165ppm for coal-fired power plants in Korea. From this assessment, economic comparison of nuclear and coal in the year 2000 showed that nuclear would be more economical than coal, whereas uncertainty of future power generation cost of nuclear would be larger than that of coal.

• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.367-391
• /
• 2013

After the Fukushima nuclear accident, the external costs of generating electricity from nuclear power plants such as additional safety compliance costs and possible accident risk action costs have gained increasing attention from the public, policy-makers and politicians. Consequently, estimates of the external costs of nuclear power are very deliberate issue that is at the center of the controversy in Korea. In this paper, we try to calculate the external costs associated with the safety of the nuclear power plants, particularly focusing on additional safety compliance costs and possible accident risk action costs. To estimate the possible accident risk action costs, we adopt the damages expectation approach that is very similar way from the external cost calculation of Japanese government after the Fukushima accident. In addition, to estimate additional safety compliance costs, we apply the levelized cost of generation method. Furthermore, we perform the sensitivity analysis to examine how much these social costs increase the electricity price rate. Estimation results of the additional security measure cost is 0.53Won/kWh ~ 0.80Won/kWh depending on the capacity factor, giving little change on the nuclear power generation cost. The estimates of possible accident risk action costs could be in the wide range depending on the different damages of the nuclear power accident, probability of the severe nuclear power accident and the capacity factor. The preliminary results show that it is 0.0025Won/kWh ~ 26.4188Won/kWh. After including those two external costs on the generation cost of a nuclear power plant, increasing rate of electricity price is 0.001%~10.0563% under the capacity factor from 70% to 90%. This paper tries to examine the external costs of nuclear power plants, so as to include it into the generation cost and the electricity price. This paper suggests one of the methodologies that we might internalize the nuclear power generations' external cost, including it into the internal generation cost.

• Korean System Dynamics Review
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.57-80
• /
• 2006

Nuclear technology made a great contribution to the national economy and society by localization of nuclear power plant design, and by stabilization of electricity price, etc. It is very important to conduct the retrospective analysis for the nuclear technology contribution to the national economy and society, but it is more important to conduct prospective analysis for the nuclear technology contribution. The term "technology value" is often used in the prospective analysis to value the result of technology development. There are various definitions of technology value, but generally it means the increment of future revenue or the reduction of future cost by technology development. These technology valuation methods are widely used in various fields (information technology or energy technology, etc). The main objective of this research is to develop valuation methodology that represents unique characteristics of nuclear power technology. The valuation methodology that incorporates market share changes of generation technologies was developed. The technology valuation model which consists of five modules (electricity demand forecast module, technology development module, market share module, electricity generation module, total cost module) to incorporate market share changes of generation technologies was developed. The nuclear power technology value assessed by this technology valuation model was 3 times more than the value assessed by the conventional method. So it was confirmed that it is very important to incorporates market share changes of generation technologies. The valuation results of nuclear power technology in this study can be used as policy data for ensuring the benefits of nuclear power R&D (Research and Development) investment.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.1369-1377
• /
• 2021

Nowadays, it is necessary to accelerate the construction of new power plant in face of rising energy demand in such a way that the electricity will be generated at the lowest cost while reducing emissions caused by that generation. The expansion planning is one of the most important issues in electricity management. Nuclear energy comes forward with the low-carbon technology and increasing competitiveness to expand the share of generated energy by introducing Gen IV reactors. In this paper, the generation expansion planning of these new Gen reactors is investigated using the WASP software. Iran power grid is selected as a case of study. We present a comparison of the twenty-one year perspective on the future with the development of (1) traditional thermal power plants and Gen II reactors, (2) Gen III + reactors with traditional thermal power plants, (3) Gen IV reactors and traditional thermal power plants, (4) Gen III + reactors and the new generation of the thermal power plant, (5) the new generation of thermal power plants and the Gen IV reactors. The results show that the Gen IV reactors have the most developing among other types of power plants leading to reduce the operating costs and emissions. The obtained results show that the use of new Gen of combined cycle power plant and Gen IV reactors make the emissions and cost to be reduced to 16% and 72% of Gen II NPPs and traditional thermal power plants, respectively.

• Journal of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology(JNFCWT)
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.207-212
• /
• 2013

Since the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in March 2011, critical views on the increase in operation of nuclear power plants including the safety and the economic feasibility thereof have been expanding across the world. In these circumstances, we are to find out solutions to the controversial questions on whether nuclear power plants are economically more feasible than other energy sources, while the safety thereof is fully maintained. Thereby, nuclear power plants will play a key role as a sustainable energy source in the future as well as at present. To measure the social safety level that Korean people are actually feeling after the Fukushima accident, a method of cost-benefit analysis called the Contingent Valuation Method(CVM) was used, whereby we wanted to estimate the amount of expenses the general public would be willing to pay for the safety based on their acceptance rather than the social safety. As a result of calculating the trade-off value of the economic feasibility versus the safety in nuclear power plants through the survey thereon, it caused the nuclear power generation cost to be increased by 4.75 won/kWh. Reflecting this on the current power generation cost of 39.11 won/kWh would increase the cost to 43.86 won/kWh. It is thought that this potential cost is still more competitive than the coal-fired power generation cost of 67 won/kWh. This result will be available as a basic data for the 2nd Energy Basic Plan to be drawn up this year, presenting policy implications at the same time.

• Journal of Power System Engineering
• /
• v.22 no.6
• /
• pp.5-10
• /
• 2018

Nuclear energy issues such as safety and social acceptance can not only influence the production costs of generating nuclear power, but also the external costs that are not reflected in market prices. Consequently, the social issues affiliated with nuclear power, beyond a severe accident, require some form of financial expense. The external social issues considered here are accident risk and realization, regulatory costs, and nuclear energy policy costs. Through several calculations and analyses of these external costs for nuclear power generation, it is concluded that these costs range from 7 to 27 \/kWh. Considering external costs are required for making energy plans, it could have an influence on generation costs.

• The Transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers
• /
• v.67 no.2
• /
• pp.179-185
• /
• 2018

A considerable cost gap between three major power generation technologies, namely nuclear, coal, and combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT), has been a well-established fact in the Korean electricity market. Alternatively, this paper analyzes the levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) of the three technologies reflecting overall social costs of electricity generation including accident risk, $CO_2$ emission, and air pollution damage. The paper unveils to what extent current discriminative subsidies on fuels regarding the social costs, mostly through tax exemptions, affect economic competitiveness of the technologies. In particular, it finds relative positions of coal and CCGT could be altered depending on appreciation level of the social costs. It has limits in analyzing fixed costs of the technologies, however, due to limited data availability of nuclear power, and suggests further studies on the issue.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.36-40
• /
• 2019

In this study, we compared the operational rates of natural gas, coal, nuclear power and renewable energy based on the data of power generation and power generation facilities produced in summer season(from June to August) during the last four years(2015~2018). Nuclear power and coal power, which are responsible for basic power generation, were guaranteed to be economical as the actual generation capacity remained 60% higher than the cost of power generation. On the other hand, natural gas generation and new renewable energy generation have a very low actual operation rate of 29.5% and 27.3% compared to investments in power generation facilities, making it difficult to lower the cost of power generation. However, coal generation has structural problems in terms of greenhouse gas, fine dust. On the other hand, natural gas generation is relatively low and even though it is safe, it is difficult to secure economic feasibility as it is bound by a peak power system. Therefore, it is only possible to achieve balanced development of energy sources when there is a change in the development policy.