COMPARATIVE TECHNOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, SMALL MODULAR REACTORS AND RENEWABLE SOLAR AND WIND POWER PLANTS DEPLOYMENT

Elektrane (2025)  [pp. 82-92]

AUTHOR(S) / AUTOR(I): V. Stevanović, S. Milivojević, M.M. Petrović and M. Lazarević

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: https://doi.org//10.46793/EEP25.082S

ABSTRACT / SAŽETAK:

Nuclear power plants (NPPs), solar photovoltaics (PVs) and wind power plants (WPs) are commercial technologies, which with available hydroelectric power plants provide decarbonized electricity generation. In addition, the application of small modular reactors (SMRs) emerges, which contributes to the technological and economical diversification and completness of the nuclear energy utilization. A comparative techno-economic analysis of the deployment of large scale NPP, SMRs, as well as PVs and WPs plants was performed, whereas it is assumed that the natural resources for the new hydro plants are mainly exhausted. The construction of one 1200 MW NPP or the construction of four identical SMRs with a unit capacity of 300 MW is considered. The same amount of electricity of 9.6 TWh could be generated with a total PVs power of 3033 MW and WPs with 1706 MW, with respective load factors of 18% and 32% for the area of Serbia. Since the production of solar and wind energy is time-dependent, a mature and economically most acceptable construction of a pumped hydropower energy storage (PHES) plant with a capacity of 620 GWh is considered for the electricity accumulation. The analysis is based on the current investment costs, nuclear fuel costs, operation, maintenance and decommissioning costs, construction time and service life. The obtained results show that for a period of operation of 60 years, SMRs provide the highest Net Present Value (NPV), while the lowest value is obtained for the project that includes PVs and WPs with PHES. At a favorable discount rate of 3%, but the lowest electricity price of 80 MWh/$, the pay-back period is 35 and 40 years, respectively, for SMRs and large scale NPP, while at the same discount rate and price of 120 MWh/$, the pay-back period of these nuclear power plants is shortened to 20 and 23 years, respectively. At a discount rate of 8%, the NPV is negative both for nuclear power plants and PVs and WPs with PHES. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is the lowest for SMRs. The LCOE ranges from 67 $/MWh for SMRs and NPP 1200 MW at the discount rate of 3%, and up to 135 $/MWh for the NPP 1200 MW and PVs and WPs with storage at the discount rate of 8%. 

KEYWORDS / KLJUČNE REČI: 

nuclear power plants; renewables, pumped-hydro storage, techno-economic analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT / PROJEKAT:

REFERENCES / LITERATURA:

  1. Decision of the ministerial council of the energy community No 2022/02/MC-EnC. Available online: https://www.energy–org/legal/acquis.html
  2. Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, European Commission, Regulation 2023/956.
  3. S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Nuclear explained-Nuclear power plants. Available online: www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/elec_cost_perf.pdf
  4. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2020 Edition, International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d–e8a5–4163–a3ec–2e6fb0b5677d/ProjectedCosts–of–Generating–Electricity–2020.pdf
  1. Development of the electric power industry of the Republic of Serbia up to the year 2050, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Department of technical sciences, Academy board for energy, Belgrade, Serbia, 2023. (in Serbian)
  2. Ferreira, H. L., Garde, R., Fulli, G., Kling, W., Lopes, J. P., Characterisation of electrical energy storage technologies. Energy, 53, 2013, pp. 288-298.
  3. Koivunen, T., Hirvijoki, E., Effect of investment cost on technology preference in a flexible, low-carbon Finnish power system. Nuclear energy and design, 417, 112854, 2024, pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2023.112854
  4. Deline, M. Muller, R. White, K. Perry, M. Springer, M. Deceglie, D. Jordan, Availability and Performance Loss Factors for U.S. PV Fleet Systems, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report NREL/TP-5K00-88769, February 2024. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88769.pdf
  5. Lillo-Sánchez, G. López-Lara, J. Vera-Medina, E. Pérez-Aparicio, I. Lillo-Bravo, Degradation analysis of photovoltaic modules after operating for 22 years. A case study with comparisons. Solar Energy, Volume 222, 2021, pp. 84-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.04.026
  6. Staffell, R. Green, How does wind farm performance decline with age? Renewable Energy, Vol. 66, 2014, pp. 775-786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.041
  7. Astolfi, R. Pandit, Wind Turbine Performance Decline with Age. Energies 2022, 15(14), 2022, 5225, https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145225
  8. Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, Uprating Programs Technology, Available online: https://westinghousenuclear.com/media/rpolsxfb/uprating–programs–pdf
  9. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), Available online: https://pris.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=531
  10. World nuclear association, Nuclear fuel cycle, Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities. Available online: https://world–org/information–library/nuclear–fuel–cycle/nuclearwaste/decommissioning–nuclear–facilities
  11. Thunder Said Energy, Solar power: decommissioning costs, Available online: https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/solar–power–decommissioning–costs/
  12. The Institute for Energy Research, The Cost of Decommissioning Wind Turbines is Huge. Available online:             https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/the–cost–ofdecommissioning–wind–turbines–is–huge/
  13. Palmer’s Creek Wind Farm Site Permit Application Chippewa County, Minnesota. Available online: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/documents/%7B29950B36–761E–4C68–B259F0FBF90842F4%7D/download
  14. S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric Power Generating Technologies. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_aeo2020.pdf
  15. M. Larsen, N. Guaita, I. Lantgios, J. Zhou, A. Abou-Jaoude, N. Stauff, Nuclear Energy Cost Estimates for Net Zero World Initiative – 2024 Update, Idaho National Laboratory, INL/RPT-24-80552, 2024. Available online: https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_130016.pdf 
  1. Steffen, M. Beuse, P. Tautorat, T. S. Schmidt, Experience Curves for Operations and Maintenance Costs of Renewable Energy Technologies. Joule, Vol. 4/2, 2019, pp. 359–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.11.012
  2. Vartiainen, G. Masson, C. Breyer, D. Moser, E. R. Medina, Impact of weighted average cost of capital, capital expenditure, and other parameters on future utility-scale PV levelised cost of electricity, Progress in Photovoltaics, Vol. 28/6, 2019, pp. 439–453, https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3189
  3. Ivkovic, Wind power plants, Profitability of investments in distributed sources of electricity, November 2014. (in Croatian) Available online: https://www.ho–cired.hr/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/Ivkovic_–Vjetroelektrane_1.pdf
  4. Đorđević, Ž. Đurišić, Mathematical model for the optimal determination of voltage level and PCC for large wind farms connection to transmission network. IET Renewable Power Generation. 13 (12), 2019, pp. 2240-2250. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet–rpg.2018.5913 24. Small modular reactors, Catalogue 2024, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2024. Available online: https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR_catalogue_2024.pdf  
  5. S. Milivojevic, M. M. Petrovic, V. D. Stevanovic, J. Riznic, M. Lazarevic, Techno-Economic Comparison of a Large-Scale Nuclear Power Plant, Small Modular Reactors, and Wind and Solar Power Plant Deployment, Energies, 18 (9_, 2025, article 2355, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/en18092355
Post Views: 19