Sustainability Assessment of NES in Thailand Using INPRO Methodology in the Area of Economics

Sustainability Assessment of NES in Thailand Using INPRO Methodology in the Area of Economics INPRO 8 th Dialogue Forum: Toward Nuclear Energy System Sustainability: Economics, Resource Availability and Institutional Arrangements, IAEA Headquarter, 26-29 August 2014 Kampanart Silva Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology

Thailand INPRO Team Members Representative Organization: Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology (TINT) Team Members Kampanart Silva Somboon Rassame Piyatida Trinuruk Jiraporn Promping Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology Chulalongkorn University King Mongkut s University of Technology Thonburi Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology Acknowledgment We would like to thank the Fiscal Policy Office, Ministry of Finance, Thailand, who helped us to determine the appropriate financial parameters. 2

Thailand and Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology (TINT) TINT Pathumthani Taiwan? Branch http://www.aseanaffairs.com/ TINT Bangkok Branch http://www.patongresidence.com/ TINT Head Office 3

Thailand Power Development Plan (PDP) 2010 Long-term Plan: 20 Years Emphasize power supply security concurrently with environmental protection Give importance to public participation Supply Security Proper percentage of power generation reserve of the country Diversification of fuel sources & types for power generation - Purchase from neighboring countries - Reduce dependence on natural gas Environmental Protection Reduce GHG emission from new power generation facilities Promote RE generation in line with the 15-year RE Development Plan Improve energy efficiency Promote efficient power generation, using Cogeneration System *The content of this slide was prepared by Mr.Tanongsak Wongla, EPPO, Thailand 4

Summary of PDP 2010 Rev.3 Generating Capacity Unit : MW Installed Capacity at end-2011 32,395 Increased (new) Capacity 55,130* Decommissioned Plants - 16,839 Total Generating Capacity at end-2030 70,686 No. of New Power Plants during 2010-2030 Nuclear Power Plant 1,000 MW 2,000 (2 plants) Combined Cycle 25,451 (29 plants) Clean Coal-fired 4,400 (5 plants) Gas Turbine 750 (3 plants) Cogeneration 6,475 Renewable Energy (SPP, VSPP, EGAT) 9,481 Purchase from abroad 6,572 *The content of this slide was prepared by Mr.Tanongsak Wongla, EPPO, Thailand 5

Need of Sustainability Assessment of NES in the Area of Economics Thailand included NES in its long-term plan (which is rather short). Nuclear power was included from the standpoints of supply security and environment protection. A more comprehensive assessment is needed to provide information on how to achieve the sustainability of the use of NES and the entire power supply scheme. The area of economics is selected as it is the area of common interest of the newcomers. 6

User Requirements and Criteria Selected UR 1 Cost of Energy UR 2 Ability to Finance UR 3 Investment Risk UR 4 Flexibility 7

UR 1 Cost of Energy CR 1.1: Cost competitiveness VS ( ) Adjustment coefficient Nuclear Assumptions Alternative source Based on PDP 2010 and documents of EGAT Comparison of LUECs 1000 1400 MWe Gen III+ NES 600 MWe coal or gas-fired PPs Tool The modified Nuclear Economics Support Tool (NEST) 8

CR 1.1 Cost Competitiveness [1/9] Levelized Unit Electricity Cost (LUEC) + + = Capital cost O&M cost Fuel cost LUEC (mill/kwh) Total power generated 9

CR 1.1 Cost Competitiveness [2/9] Capital Cost Important inputs for calculation of capital cost Net electric power 1,000 1,400 MWe (ABWR, AP1000, ATMEA1, VVER1200, ACPR1000, APR1400) Construction period 4 6 years (Information from vendors plus 1 year) Overnight cost 1,600 5,900 $/kwe (Projected Cost of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition, OECD NEA) Contingency cost 10 20% (Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition recommended 15%) Owner cost Not included (Evaluator decision) Investment schedule Uniform 10

CR 1.1 Cost Competitiveness [3/9] O&M Cost/Fuel Cost Important inputs for calculation of O&M cost/fuel cost O&M cost 8.95 16.94 mill/kwh (Projected Cost of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition, OECD NEA) Fuel back end cost 519 2,218 $/kg (The Economics of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, OECD NEA, 2013) Core power density 25 40.2 kw/kg (ARIS) Fuel burnup 48.4 60 MWd/kg (Information from vendors) Uranium cost Natural uranium: 130 $/kg Conversion cost: 9 $/kg Enrichment cost: 140 $/kg Fabrication cost: 300 $/kg (A. Lokhov, 2013) U-235 concentration Average: 4.95% Refueling fuel: 4.95% Enrichment tail: 0.25% (A. Lokhov, 2013) 11

CR 1.1 Cost Competitiveness [4/9] Other Important Inputs for LUEC Calculation Other important inputs Real discount rate 7 11% (MLR (Minimum loan rate) of Bank in Thailand (2014 average) and MLR+4) Load factor 90% (From NEST; typical value) Plant life time 60 years (From NEST; typical value) Decommissioning cost 1 mill/kwh (From IAEA TECDOC 1575 Rev. 1 Vol. 2) 12

CR 1.1 Cost Competitiveness [5/9] LUEC of Coal-fired Power Plant Important inputs for calculation of LUEC of CFPP Net electric power Construction period Load factor 600 MWe (Based on plan of EGAT) 3.5 4.5 years (Typical values; IEA) 75% (Taken from NEST) Overnight cost 900 2,800 $/kwe (contingency cost 10%) (Projected Cost of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition, OECD NEA) O&M Cost 1.51 10.06 mill/kwh (Projected Cost of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition; Only Asian countries) Fuel price 0.92 1.99 $/GJ (Purchasing price in April 2014 estimated from information in EGAT website) 13

CR 1.1 Cost Competitiveness [6/9] LUEC of Gas Turbine Power Plant Important inputs for calculation of LUEC of GTPP Net electric power Construction period Load factor 600 MWe (Based on plan of EGAT) 2.5 3 years (Typical values; IEA) 75% (Taken from NEST) Overnight cost 520 1,800 $/kwe (contingency cost 10%) (Projected Cost of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition, OECD NEA) O&M Cost 2.81 5.55 mill/kwh (Projected Cost of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition; Only Asian countries) Fuel price 8.10 8.36 $/GJ (Purchasing price in April 2014 estimated from information in EGAT website) 14

CR 1.1 Cost Competitiveness [7/9] LUECs of NES, CFPP and GTPP LUECs of Nuclear, Coal and Gas Nuclear Coal Gas 149.17 88.07 54.15 82.53 29.29 23.69 65.34 106.27 94.14 Median Min Max 15

CR 1.1 Cost Competitiveness [8/9] Discussion Issue of selection of parameter values The ranges between the minimum and the maximum LUECs of each resource are too large. There is no guarantee that the LUECs which was estimated using the median values of each parameter would be the appropriate one. The ceteris paribus sensitivity analysis might not be suitable because when a parameter is varied, others will be fixed to the median values which might not be appropriate. We decided to treat parameters which possess range as a distribution, and perform a very simple Monte Carlo calculation. Assume all uniform distributions. Number of calculations: 500 We recognize that the assumptions above may not be proper, but it is still worth to perform a trial calculation with the information we have. 16

CR 1.1 Cost Competitiveness [9/9] LUECs of NES, CFPP and GTPP 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 112.77 93.48 95.51 89.74 82.51 72.76 73.40 75.93 71.89 64.38 52.32 53.98 41.50 43.89 37.54 Nuclear Coal Gas 95 th percentile 80 th percentile 50 th percentile 20 th percentile 5 th percentile 17

UR 1 Cost of Energy: Summary Indicator (IN) Acceptance Limit (AL) Judgment IN 1.1 Cost of energy AL1.1 C N < k * C A Yes (gas) No (coal) Remarks Nuclear 52 93 mills/kwh (average: 74) Coal 44 64 mills/kwh (average: 54) Gas 76 90 mills/kwh (average: 83) LUECs of nuclear and gas are relatively high, while that of coal is relatively low. The purchasing price of coal is very low (1 2 $/GJ), while the price of gas is very high (8 $/GJ). The carbon tax was not taken into account (as is the case in Thailand), which benefits gas and coal. This criteria could be met if the adjustment coefficient > 1.4. For example, in case of strong opposition to coal fired power plant, or; Strong desire to introduce nuclear power from some specific reasons, e.g., energy security, this criteria cannot be easily met. 18

User Requirements and Criteria Selected UR 1 Cost of Energy UR 2 Ability to Finance UR 3 Investment Risk UR 4 Flexibility 19

UR2 Ability to Finance [1/2] CR2.1 Attractiveness of investment Internal Return Rate of Of Return Investment CR2.2 Affordability of investment Nuclear VS Alternative Source Total Investment VS Investment Limit Assumptions Same as UR 1 20

UR2 Ability to Finance [2/2] Important inputs for calculations of IRR, ROI, Total investment Electricity selling price 94.79 mill/kwh (Selling price of EGAT in 2013) Market income 16,502 M$ (EGAT Financial Report 2013) Market share 1 (EGAT is the only electricity distributor in Thailand) Profit margin 7.05% (Calculated from EGAT Financial Report 2013) Time of growth 3.09 4.33 years (nuclear) 1.85 years (coal, gas) (Calculated from increase in electricity generation capacity between 1987-2012) 21

CR 2.1 Attractiveness of Investment [1/2] IRRs 30 25 20 15 10 5 28.68 27.74 23.96 21.90 20.52 18.16 16.06 14.77 15.01 12.03 13.26 11.16 9.14 9.55 8.06 Nuclear Coal Gas 95 th percentile 80 th percentile 50 th percentile 20 th percentile 5 th percentile 22

CR 2.1 Attractiveness of Investment [2/2] ROIs 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 42.18 32.86 31.25 26.46 22.40 23.00 19.97 17.91 15.51 15.81 13.44 11.17 9.69 9.90 8.33 Nuclear Coal Gas 95 th percentile 80 th percentile 50 th percentile 20 th percentile 5 th percentile 23

CR 2.2 Investment Limit Total Investment VS Investment Limit 12000 10000 8000 10 842 8 769 95 th 80 th 6000 4000 2000 0 6 602 4 364 3 130 Nuclear Nuclear (Limit) 6 303 5 470 4 170 2 977 2 259 2 218 3 115 1 991 1 366 2 178 1 552 1 209 1 755 1 063 907 531 838 611 1 198 469 Coal Gas Fossil (Limit) 50 th 20 th 5 th 24

UR 2 Ability to Finance: Summary [1/2] Indicator (IN) Acceptance Limit (AL) Judgment Remarks IN 2.1: Financial figures of merit AL2.1.1 IRR N > IRR A AL2.1.2 ROI N > ROI A No Yes (gas) No (coal) Nuclear 9 16% (average: 13) Coal 15 24% (average: 19) Gas 11 22% (average: 16) Nuclear 11 22% (average:17) Coal 18 33% (average: 25) Gas 10 20% (average: 15) Both IRR and ROI of nuclear cannot compete with those of coal. Comparing nuclear to gas, IRR of nuclear is smaller, while ROI is larger. The former is because nuclear requires large investment in the beginning, which will results in smaller profit when a relatively large discount rate is taken into account. The latter is simply because LUEC of nuclear is smaller while PUESs are the same. 25

UR2 Ability to Finance: Results [2/2] Indicator (IN) Acceptance Limit (AL) Judgment Remarks IN 2.2: Total investment AL2.2 Investment N < Investment LIMIT No Total investment/ investment limit Nuclear 4,400 8,800 M$/ 3,000 5,500 M$ Coal 1,100 2,000 M$/ 1,500 1,800 M$ Gas 600 1,200 M$/ 1,500 1,800 M$ The market share of EGAT is large enough to facilitate investment for coal and gas with low risk, but still too small for nuclear. A national project would be a suitable way to introduce nuclear power to Thailand, as the involvement of the government may help reduce the investment risk. 26

User Requirements and Criteria Selected UR 1 Cost of Energy UR 2 Ability to Finance UR 3 Investment Risk UR 4 Flexibility 27

UR3 Investment Risk CR3.1 Maturity of design Technical development and status of licensing of a design to be installed or developed are sufficiently mature. CR3.2 Construction schedule Times for construction and commissioning used in economic evaluation are sufficiently accurate CR3.3 Uncertainty of economic input parameters Sensitivity to changes in selected parameters is acceptable to investor CR3.4 Political environment Commitment sufficient to enable a return on investment. Assumptions Same as UR 1 28

UR3 Investment Risk: Results [1/2] Indicator (IN) Acceptance Limit (AL) Judgment Remarks IN 3.1 Technical and regulatory status AL3.1.1 Plants of same basic design have been constructed and operated Partial Some plants are constructed and operated, but most of them have only started the construction. IN 3.2 Project construction/ commissioning times AL3.2.1 Construction schedule times used in financial analyses are appropriate. Partial Some plants or forerunner plants were constructed within the scheduled period or with slight delays. Thailand may need to wait until NESs under consideration start their operation to ensure the technical integrity of NESs. It is likely that an NES constructed in a non-technology developing country will have a longer construction period. This must be taken into account appropriately. 29

UR3 Investment Risk: Results [2/2] Indicator (IN) Acceptance Limit (AL) Judgment Remarks IN 3.3 Acceptable sensitivity analysis AL3.3: Sensitivity to changes in selected parameters is acceptable to the investor N/A Additional opinions from the possible investors (EGAT or Ministry of Energy) may be needed. IN 3.4 Long term commitment to nuclear option AL3.4: Commitment sufficient to enable a return on investment No The political climate at the moment is relatively unfavorable. This assessment was done by the Thailand INPRO Team which involves only TINT, CU and KMUTT. The appropriateness of the sensitivity analysis must be discussed with EGAT or MOE. Thailand government made three revisions to the PDP 2010 (within 3 years). There were changes of the number of NESs to be introduced and the year to be introduced in these revisions. 30

Conclusions for Assessment on the Area of Economics Assessment on the area of infrastructure in this study should be considered as the preliminary assessment. Additional information and detailed analysis for some indicators are required. Results for many indicators identified the gaps to be fulfilled. The cost of nuclear is higher than coal but slightly lower than gas. Financial figures of merit were mostly smaller than the fossil fuels. Total investment needed for construction of a nuclear power plant is larger than the investment limit. Some of the investment risks can be averted, but some remain as important issues. 31

Comments to INPRO Methodology in the Area of Economics INPRO Methodology has appropriately taken into account the differences between the technology developers and the newcomers. Introduction of adjusting coefficients Introduction of options where the needs of the two parties are different Global sensitivity analysis or Monte Carlo calculation may be more suitable to take into account the uncertainties associated with LUEC, financial figure of merits, total investment, etc., than the ceteris paribus sensitivity analysis. 32

Thailand INPRO Team Members Representative Organization: Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology (TINT) Team Members Kampanart Silva Somboon Rassame Piyatida Trinuruk Jiraporn Promping Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology Chulalongkorn University King Mongkut s University of Technology Thonburi Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology Acknowledgment We would like to thank the Fiscal Policy Office, Ministry of Finance, Thailand, who helped us to determine the appropriate financial parameters. 33

Backup Slides 34

CR1.1 Cost Competitiveness IN1.1 Cost of energy LUEC of Gen III+ NES Inputs for calculation of CI t Net electric power (P t ) 1 : 1,000 1,400 MWe Construction period 2 : 4 6 years Overnight cost 3 : 1,600 5,900 $/kwe Contingency cost 4 : 10 20% Owner cost 5 : 0 $/kwe Capital investment schedule 5 : Uniform distribution 1 ABWR, AP1000, ATMEA1, VVER1200, ACPR1000, APR1400 (Taken form the presentation of EGAT) 2 ABWR: 3.9 5.4 y, AP1000: 36 m, ATMEA1: 48 m, VVER1200: < 54 m, ACPR1000 42 m, APR1400 48 m, and the evaluator added another year for construction in unfamiliar locations. 3 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition 4 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition recommended 15% 5 Evaluator decisions 35

CR1.1 Cost Competitiveness IN1.1 Cost of energy O&M t (Operation and maintenance cost) 1 : 8.95 16.94 Mill/kWh Inputs for calculation of F t Nuclear fuel back end cost 2 : 519 2,218 $/kg Unloaded fuel average burnup 3 : 48.4 60 MWd/kg Net thermal efficiency 4 : 34 37% Reactor first core average power density 5 : 25 40.2 kw/kg Natural U purchase cost 6 : 130 $/kg U conversion cost 6 : 9 $/kg U enrichment cost 6 : 140 $/kg Nuclear fuel fabrication cost 6 : 300 $/kg 1 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition 2 http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2013/7061-ebenfc.pdf 3 http://www.hitachi.com/icsfiles/afieldfile/2009/04/28/r2009_02_104.pdf http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/ap1000/dcd/tier%202/chapter%204/4-3_r14.pdf http://www.rosatom.ru/en/resources/740d9f004ad544cebca2bec56a5c9660/yanko_tvel_nuclear_fuel_for_vver-1200.pdf http://www.iaea.org/nuclearpower/downloadable/aris/2013/36.vver-1200(v-491).pdf http://www.iaea.org/nuclearpower/downloadable/meetings/2011/2011-07-04-07-08-ws-nptd/6_korea_apr1400_opr1000_khnp_kim.pdf 4 http://local.ans.org/trinity/files/drhoffman1.pdf http://www.atmea-sas.com/atmea/liblocal/docs/bivolet2%20atme2.pdf 5 ARIS 6 http://www.iaea.org/nuclearpower/downloadable/meetings/2013/2013-09-11-09-13-tm-nptd/5.lokhov.pdf 36

CR1.1 Cost Competitiveness IN1.1 Cost of energy Inputs for calculation of F t (cont d) First core lowest U-235 concentration 1 : 3.95% First core medium U-235 concentration 2 : 4.95% Refueling fuel U-235 concentration 2 : 4.95% Enrichment tails U-235 concentration 2 : 0.25% Others: Information in NEST was used. r (Real discount rate) 3 : 7 11% Lf t (Load factor) 4 : 90% t END (Life time of plant) 4 : 60 years Others Decommissioning cost 5 : 1 mill/kwh 1 Medium concentration 1 2 http://www.iaea.org/nuclearpower/downloadable/meetings/2013/2013-09-11-09-13-tm-nptd/5.lokhov.pdf 3 MLR (Minimum loan rate) of Bank in Thailand (2014 average) and MLR+4 4 Taken from NEST 5 IAEA TECDOC 1575 Rev.1 Vol.2 6 Evaluator decision 37

CR1.1 Cost Competitiveness IN1.1 Cost of energy Other important inputs for calculation of LUEC of Coal-fired power plant Net electric power 1 : 600 MWe Construction period 2 : 3.5 4.5 years Life time of plant 3 : 40 years Average load factor 3 : 75% Decommissioning cost 3 : 0 mill/kwh Overnight cost 4 : 900 2,800 $/kwe Contingency cost 5 : 10% Owner cost 6 : 0 $/kwe Capital investment schedule 6 : Uniform distribution Operation and maintenance cost 7 : 1.51 10.06 Mill/kWh Fuel price 8 : 0.92 1.99 $/GJ Real fuel price escalation rate 9 : 1%/year Net thermal efficiency 10 : 37.7% 1 Based on plan of EGAT 2 http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/e-techds/pdf/e01-coal-fired-power-gs-ad-gct.pdf 3 Taken from NEST 4 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition 5 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition recommended 5% 6 Evaluator decisions 7 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition (only Asian countries) 8 http://www.egat.co.th/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&layout=edit&id=85&itemid=116 http://www.carbonlighthouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/unitsandconversions.pdf http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11977&page=170 8.7924-18.46404 / https://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html 9 indexmundi 10 http://www.iea.org/ciab/papers/power_generation_from_coal.pdf (% GCV basis) 38

CR1.1 Cost Competitiveness IN1.1 Cost of energy Other important inputs for calculation of LUEC of Gas-fired power plant Net electric power 1 : 600 MWe Construction period 2 : 2.5 3 years Life time of plant 3 : 40 years Average load factor 3 : 75% Decommissioning cost 3 : 0 mill/kwh Overnight cost 4 : 520 1,800 $/kwe Contingency cost 5 : 10% Owner cost 6 : 0 $/kwe Capital investment schedule 6 : Uniform distribution Operation and maintenance cost 7 : 2.81 5.55 Mill/kWh Fuel price 8 : 8.10 8.36 $/GJ Real fuel price escalation rate 9 : 1%/year Net thermal efficiency 10 : 52-60% 1 Based on plan of EGAT 2 http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/e-techds/pdf/e02-gas_fired_power-gs-ad-gct.pdf 3 Taken from NEST 4 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition 5 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition recommended 5% 6 Evaluator decisions 7 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition (only Asian countries) 8 http://www.egat.co.th/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&layout=edit&id=85&itemid=116 http://www.carbonlighthouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/unitsandconversions.pdf http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11977&page=170 8.7924-18.46404 / https://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html 9 indexmundi 10 http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/e-techds/pdf/e02-gas_fired_power-gs-ad-gct.pdf 39

CR1.1 Cost Competitiveness IN1.1 Cost of energy Initial results of LUECs Case No. LUEC [mills/kwh] Nuclear Coal Gas 1 88.07 54.15 82.53 3 29.29 23.69 65.34 4 149.17 94.14 106.27 1: All median values (assume uniform distributions) 2: Use values that give the best results 3: Use values that give the worst results 40

CR1.1 Cost Competitiveness IN1.1 Cost of energy LUECs of Each Resource LUEC [mills/kwh] Nuclear Coal Gas Average 73.59 54.31 82.87 5 th percentile 41.50 37.54 71.89 10 th percentile 44.98 40.10 73.47 20 th percentile 52.32 43.89 75.93 50 th percentile 72.76 53.98 82.51 80 th percentile 93.48 64.38 89.74 90 th percentile 104.36 69.70 93.09 95 th percentile 112.77 73.40 95.51 Minimum 32.57 27.74 68.03 Maximum 128.21 81.23 103.03 41

CR 1.1 Cost Competitiveness LUECs of NES, CFPP (Fuel price x 3) and GTPP 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 112.77 107.56 93.48 97.38 95.51 89.74 83.57 82.51 72.76 71.93 75.93 71.89 61.79 52.32 41.50 Nuclear Coal Gas 95 th percentile 80 th percentile 50 th percentile 20 th percentile 5 th percentile 42

UR2 Ability to Finance Additional input needed for calculation of IRR and ROI Price per unit of electricity sold (PUES) 1 : 94.79 mills/kwh Additional inputs needed for calculation of Investment N Market income 2 : 16502 M$ Market share 3 : 1 Profit margin 2 : 7.05% Time of growth 4 : 3.09 4.33 years Adjusting coefficient 5 : 0.5 1.5 Additional inputs needed for calculation of Investment LIMIT Time of growth 4 : 1.85 years Adjusting coefficient 5 : 0.5 1.5 1 http://www.egat.co.th/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&itemid=116 2 http://www.egat.co.th/images/businessop/financials/31-12-56.pdf 3 http://www.efe.or.th/datacenter/ckupload/files/1_policy%20part%202.pdf 4 http://www.egat.co.th//images/information/statistics/data-production-annual-2555.pdf/ =(Total Power)/(Increase in Electricity Generation Capacity between 1987-2012) 5 Normally equal to 1 (TECDOC 1575 Rev. 1 Vol. 2) 43

CR2.1 Attractiveness of Investment IN2.1 Financial Figures of Merit IRRs of Each Resource IRR [%] Nuclear Coal Gas Average 12.69 19.23 16.39 5 th percentile 8.06 13.26 9.55 10 th percentile 8.44 13.85 10.07 20 th percentile 9.14 14.77 11.16 50 th percentile 12.03 18.16 15.01 80 th percentile 16.06 23.96 21.90 90 th percentile 18.87 26.72 25.00 95 th percentile 20.52 28.68 27.74 Minimum 7.53 11.84 8.00 Maximum 22.59 33.18 32.27 44

CR2.1 Attractiveness of Investment IN2.1 Financial Figures of Merit ROIs of Each Resource ROI [%] Nuclear Coal Gas Average 17.03 25.28 14.86 5 th percentile 9.69 15.81 8.33 10 th percentile 10.20 16.57 8.83 20 th percentile 11.17 17.91 9.90 50 th percentile 15.51 23.00 13.44 80 th percentile 22.40 32.86 19.97 90 th percentile 27.84 38.12 23.02 95 th percentile 31.25 42.18 26.46 Minimum 8.99 13.80 7.08 Maximum 35.83 52.55 33.44 45

CR2.2 Investment Limit IN2.2 Total Investment Total Investment and Investment Limit of Nuclear Nuclear Total investment [M$] Investment limit [M$] Average 6680 4226 5 th percentile 3130 2259 10 th percentile 3524 2508 20 th percentile 4364 2977 50 th percentile 6602 4170 80 th percentile 8769 5470 90 th percentile 10024 5953 95 th percentile 10842 6303 Minimum 2395 1856 Maximum 12490 7275 46

CR2.2 Investment Limit IN2.2 Total Investment Total Investment and Investment Limit of Coal Coal Total investment [M$] Investment limit [M$] Average 1543 2163 5 th percentile 838 1198 10 th percentile 915 1335 20 th percentile 1063 1531 50 th percentile 1552 2178 80 th percentile 1991 1755 90 th percentile 2129 3016 95 th percentile 2218 3115 Minimum 727 1070 Maximum 2390 3203 47

CR2.2 Investment Limit IN2.2 Total Investment Total Investment and Investment Limit of Gas Gas Total investment [M$] Investment limit [M$] Average 914 2163 5 th percentile 469 1198 10 th percentile 517 1335 20 th percentile 611 1531 50 th percentile 907 2178 80 th percentile 1209 1755 90 th percentile 1317 3016 95 th percentile 1366 3115 Minimum 410 1070 Maximum 1456 3203 48

CR3.1 Maturity of design IN3.1 Technical and regulatory status AL3.1.1 (For deployment of first few NPPs in a country): Plants of same basic design have been constructed and operated. Considerations 1 Selected NESs are all generation III+ reactors (ABWR, AP1000, ATMEA1, VVER1200, ACPR1000, APR1400). ABWR has started the commercial operation. Some of them have already started the construction (AP1000, VVER1200, ACPR1000, APR1400), or planning the construction (ATMEA1) but have no operating experience. However, some of them have forerunner plants (VVER1200, ACPR1000, APR1400) that may help ensure the experience of the technology developer. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/ 49

CR3.2 Construction schedule IN3.2 Project construction/commissioning times AL3.2.1 (For deployment of first few NPP in a country): Construction schedule times used in financial analyses have been met in previous construction projects for plants of the same basic design. Considerations 1 ABWR: 4-5 years, except for Longmen Nuclear Power Plant and Higashidori Nuclear Power Plant AP1000: Sanmen Unit 1 has approx. 1 year delay from the scheduled 3 years Others: N/A However, expected construction periods can be based on the construction period of some forerunner plants Finally, the evaluator decided to add a year to the construction period provided in the website of each technology developers. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/ 50

CR3.3 Uncertainty of economic input parameters IN3.3 Acceptable sensitivity analysis AL3.3: Sensitivity to changes in selected parameters is acceptable to the investor Considerations Monte Carlo calculation must substitute the sensitivity analysis. However, additional opinions from the possible investors (EGAT or Ministry of Energy) may be needed. 51

CR3.4 Political environment IN3.4 Long term commitment to nuclear option AL3.4: Commitment sufficient to enable a return on investment The issue of the political climate is presented in the area of economics primarily to ensure that an assessment in the area of infrastructure has been carried out and that this assessment has established that the political climate is favorable. Considerations The assessment in the area of infrastructure has been carried out. However, the political climate at the moment is relatively unfavorable. The detail of the assessment can be referred to in the assessment in the area of infrastructure. 52