 A COST/BENEFIT PERSPECTIVE OF EXTENDED UNIT SERVICE AS A DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVEJames G. Hewlett The Energy Journal, 1991, vol. 12, issue 1_suppl, 255-272 Abstract: Some people consider life extension (and its cousin, license renewal) an alternative to decommissioning. The reasons for the popularity of such alternatives include presumed cost effectiveness, retention of scarce power plant sites, and the continued ability to pass on waste storage expenses as a cost of service. In this chapter, James Hewlett addresses nuclear power plant life extension—which he calls NUPLEX--in its economic garb, starting with a look at the common utility presumption that life extension of a nuclear plant will allow it to produce electricity at a lower rate than new coal generation. This presumption, he argues, may not be supportable by analysis. He concludes that the deferral of constructing new replacement capacity would result in cost savings only if both the level and escalation rate of the operating costs for the refurbished unit fall substantially from 1986 levels. Therefore, it is unclear whether the deferral of the construction of new capacity would result in the cost savings, although it definitely shifts the financial burden into the future. Keywords: Nuclear decommissioning; Reactor life extension; Refurbished reactor; NUPLEX (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:enejou:v:12:y:1991:i:1_suppl:p:255-272 DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol12-NoSI-20 Access Statistics for this article More articles in The Energy Journal |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.