םויה רבדנ המ לע
?
9
תקדצומ ל משח רוצייל םחפמ האיציה םאה
?
9
הבוט הפולח הניה יעבט זג םאה
?
9
תורחא תויורשפא תומייק םאה
?
2000 Fuel Share of World Total
Primary Energy Supply
Coal 23.5% Gas 21.1% Nuclear 6.8% Renewables 13.8% Oil 34.8% Combustible Renewables and Waste (CRW) 11.0% Hydro 2.3% Other 0.5% Tide 0.004% Wind 0.026% Solar 0.039% Geothermal 0.442%
Past Annual Growth of Renewable
Energy Supply 1971- 2000
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 T P E S R e n e w a b le s C R W H y d ro O th e r A n n u a l G ro w th R a te (% ) 2 .1 % 2 .1 % 1 .8 % 2 .7 % 9 .4 % 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 G e o th e r m a l S o l a r W in d T id e , o th e r 8 .8 % 3 2 .6 % 5 2 .1 8 .4 %Past and Future World Total
Primary Energy Supply (TPES) by Type
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 1971 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Mt o e
Non-Renewables CRW Hydro Other Renewables
Canadian and Saudi Oil Reserves
Year-end 2002
6.9 174.4 261.8 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Billions of Barrels Canadian ConventionalAB Crude Bitumen Saudi Conventional
World Consumption of Primary Energy
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000million tonnes oil equivalent
טפנל תופולח
ת ופ ולח רוצ יי ל ש ת ויא דכ ל ל וחמה ט פנ ל ש ר יחמ
:
US$80
biodiesel
US$60
ethanol from corn
US$50
Shale oil
US$40
tar sands; ethanol for sugar cane,
gas to liquids; coal to liquids
US$20
conventional oil
ת ופ ולח רוצ יי ל ש ת ויא דכ ל ל וחמה ט פנ ל ש ר יחמ
:
US$80
biodiesel
US$60
ethanol from corn
US$50
Shale oil
US$40
tar sands; ethanol for sugar cane,
gas to liquids; coal to liquids
Back home on the farm…replacing baseload
The options:
coal fired generation
large natural gas fired generation
nuclear generation?
Other alternatives are not a good
replacement for baseload capacity
CERI’s study
Compares:9 Coal fired generation
new scrubbed coal
9 Natural gas fired generation
combined cycle gas turbine
9 Nuclear generation, two options considered:
twin CANDU 6 nuclear reactor
twin ACR-700 nuclear reactor
Comparisons made using levelised unit electricity
Characteristic and costs
$1.45 / net MW.h $1.45 / net MW.h
$0 $0
Spent Fuel Cost
none none 1.8% real/yr until 2025 none real increase $2.30 / net MW.h $4.00 / net MW.h $6.47/Mcf (in 2005) $1.90/GJ level Fuel Costs 90% Capacity Factor 7000 Btu/kW.h 9000 Btu/kW.h Heat Rate $11.8M per year $8M per year $0 $0 Decommissioning Cost $0 $0 $0 $0
On-going Capital Expenditure
$0/MW.h/yr $0/MW.h/yr $3.07/MW.h/yr $4.62/MW.h/yr Variable $12.90/net MW.h/yr $10.85/net MW.h/yr $15.38/kW/yr $36.91/kW/yr Fixed O&M 30 years Operating Life ($4,000 million) ($3,300 million) ($412 million) ($800 million) $2,972/kWnet $2,347/kWnet $711/kWnet $1,600/kWnet Plant Cost 1346 MW 1406 MW 580 MW 500 MW
Station Capacity (net)
Twin CANDU 6 Twin ACR-700 Nuclear Natural Gas Coal Variable
How long to build…?
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Gas Coal ACR-700 CANDU 6 Operation Environmental Assessment (2 years) 8% DP 21% 21% 27.1% 27.1% 19.6% 19.6% 12% 12% 7.2% 7.2% 5.1% 5.1% 8% DP 3.1% DP 16.1% 30.8% 34.1% 15.9% 50% 50% Environmental Assessment (2 years) Environmental Assessment (2 years) E.A. (1 year) DP = Down Payment 2nd ACR-700 and CANDU 6 units in Operation Construction Construction ConstructionCosts of financing
Two stylised financing scenarios considered for the base case.
Merchant financing:
50% debt, with a required return of 8%
50% equity, with a required return of 12%
Straight line depreciation
Income tax rate 30%
Public financing:
required return of 8%
Results: Base case
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Coal -merchant Gas -merchant ACR700 -merchant CANDU 6 -merchant Coal -public Gas -public ACR700 -public CANDU 6 -public LUE C $/ M W .hCO
2Emissions Cost ($15/tonne)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Coal -merchant Gas -merchant ACR700 -merchant CANDU 6 -merchant Coal -public Gas -public ACR700 -public CANDU 6 -public LUE C $/ M W .hCapital cost of new nuclear
40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Coal -merchant Gas -merchant ACR700 -merchant CANDU 6 -merchant Coal -public Gas -public ACR700 -public CANDU 6 -public LUE C $ /M W .h 1st of a kind 1st of a kind nth of a kind nth of a kindOther sensitivities considered
9
Capacity factors
9
Plant cost
9
Heat rate
9
Fuel costs
9
Operational lifetime
Range of results
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Coal-merchant merchantGas - ACR-700 -merchant CANDU 6 -merchant publicCoal - publicGas - ACR-700 -public CANDU 6 -public
LUE C $ /M W .h 1st of a kind 1st of a kind nth of a kind nth of a kind
Financing assumptions
Financing costs subject to some uncertainty9 Low capital cost technologies relatively robust to
changes in financing assumptions
9 For high capital cost technologies financing assumptions
much more important.
9 Key issues:
Allocation of risk
Conclusions
9 Natural gas fired generation for baseload power is an unattractive
option in the event natural gas prices remain high. Tight domestic supply and increased reliance on imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) contribute to the view that natural gas prices will remain high.
9 Under many of the scenarios considered, coal fired generation
represents a low cost technology. Costs may be significantly higher if the potential cost of CO2 emissions is included.
9 The costs of nuclear generation varies considerably with
assumptions made about the technology deployed and the method of financing. CERI’s study indicates that at the lower end of the
range of costs estimated for nuclear generation it is competitive with coal.
