Cost comparison of 4x500 MW coal-fuelled and 4x850 MW CANDU nuclear generating stations

The lifetime costs for a 4x850 MW CANDU generating station are compared to those for 4x500 MW bituminous coal-fuelled generating stations. Two types of coal-fuelled stations are considered; one burning U.S. coal which includes flue gas desulfurization and one burning Western Canadian coal. Current estimates for the capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, fuel costs, decommissioning costs and irradiated fuel management costs are shown. The results show: (1) The accumulated discounted costs of nuclear generation, although initially higher, are lower than coal-fuelled generation after two or three years. (2) Fuel costs provide the major contribution to the total lifetime costs for coal-fuelled stations whereas capital costs are the major item for the nuclear station. (3) The break even lifetime capacity factor between nuclear and U.S. coal-fuelled generation is projected to be 5%; that for nuclear and Canadian coal-fuelled generation is projected to be 9%. (4) Large variations in the costs are required before the cost advantage of nuclear generation is lost. (5) Comparison with previous results shows that the nuclear alternative has a greater cost advantage in the current assessment. (6) The total unit energy cost remains approximately constant throughout the station life for nuclear generation while that for coal-fuelled generation increases significantly due to escalating fuel costs. The 1978 and 1979 actual total unit energy cost to the consumer for several Ontario Hydro stations are detailed, and projected total unit energy costs for several Ontario Hydro stations are shown in terms of escalated dollars and in 1980 constant dollars