IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sip/dpaper/09-025.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New U.S. Nuclear Generation: 2010-2030

Author

Listed:
  • Geoffrey Rothwell

    (Stanford University)

Abstract

The report's key finding is that new nuclear capacity in NEMS-RFF from 2015 to 2020 under the current levels of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantees is similar to the marginal increase in new capacity from lowering the nominal return-on-equity (ROE) in NEMS-RFF for new nuclear power from 17 to 14 percent. This equivalence allows for an analysis of the costs and benefits of increasing DOE loan guarantees to new nuclear plants.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoffrey Rothwell, 2010. "New U.S. Nuclear Generation: 2010-2030," Discussion Papers 09-025, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:sip:dpaper:09-025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://siepr.stanford.edu/system/files/shared/pubs/papers/Rothwell-Nuclear-RFF_June2010.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geoffrey Rothwell, 2006. "A Real Options Approach to Evaluating New Nuclear Power Plants," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 37-53.
    2. Rothwell, Geoffrey, 2010. "International light water nuclear fuel fabrication supply: Are fabrication services assured?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 538-544, May.
    3. Rothwell, Geoffrey, 1990. "Utilization and service : Decomposing nuclear reactor capacity factors," Resources and Energy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 215-229, September.
    4. Geoffrey Rothwell, "undated". "Market Power in Uranium Enrichment," Discussion Papers 08-032, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brown, Stephen P.A. & Krupnick, Alan, 2010. "Abundant Shale Gas Resources: Long-Term Implications for U.S. Natural Gas Markets," RFF Working Paper Series dp-10-41, Resources for the Future.
    2. Ian W.H. Parry & Mr. John Norregaard & Mr. Dirk Heine, 2012. "Environmental Tax Reform: Principles from Theory and Practice to Date," IMF Working Papers 2012/180, International Monetary Fund.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kessides, Ioannis N., 2010. "Nuclear power: Understanding the economic risks and uncertainties," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 3849-3864, August.
    2. Rothwell, Geoffrey & Wood, Thomas W. & Daly, Don & Weimar, Mark R., 2014. "Sustainability of light water reactor fuel cycles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 16-23.
    3. Koomey, Jonathan & Hultman, Nathan E., 2007. "A reactor-level analysis of busbar costs for US nuclear plants, 1970-2005," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5630-5642, November.
    4. John Foster & Liam Wagner & Phil Wild & Junhua Zhao & Lucas Skoofa & Craig Froome, 2011. "Market and Economic Modelling of the Intelligent Grid: End of Year Report 2009," Energy Economics and Management Group Working Papers 09, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    5. Casper Agaton, 2017. "Coal, Renewable, or Nuclear? A Real Options Approach to Energy Investments in the Philippines," International Journal of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Research, Conscientia Beam, vol. 6(2), pages 50-62.
    6. Jānis Krūmiņš & Māris Kļaviņš, 2023. "Investigating the Potential of Nuclear Energy in Achieving a Carbon-Free Energy Future," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-31, April.
    7. Santos, Lúcia & Soares, Isabel & Mendes, Carla & Ferreira, Paula, 2014. "Real Options versus Traditional Methods to assess Renewable Energy Projects," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 588-594.
    8. Lee, Shun-Chung, 2011. "Using real option analysis for highly uncertain technology investments: The case of wind energy technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4443-4450.
    9. Lee, Shun-Chung & Shih, Li-Hsing, 2010. "Renewable energy policy evaluation using real option model -- The case of Taiwan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(Supplemen), pages 67-78, September.
    10. Rothwell, Geoffrey & Rust, John, 1997. "On the Optimal Lifetime of Nuclear Power Plants," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(2), pages 195-208, April.
    11. Linares, Pedro & Conchado, Adela, 2013. "The economics of new nuclear power plants in liberalized electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 119-125.
    12. Botterud, Audun & Yildiz, Bilge & Conzelmann, Guenter & Petri, Mark C., 2008. "Nuclear hydrogen: An assessment of product flexibility and market viability," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 3961-3973, October.
    13. Ahmad, Ali & Salahieh, Sidra & Snyder, Ryan, 2017. "Multinational uranium enrichment in the Middle East," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 103-110.
    14. Heinzel, Christoph, 2008. "Implications of diverging social and private discount rates for investments in the German power industry: a new case for nuclear energy?," Dresden Discussion Paper Series in Economics 03/08, Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Economics.
    15. Zou, Hongyang & Du, Huibin & Brown, Marilyn A. & Mao, Guozhu, 2017. "Large-scale PV power generation in China: A grid parity and techno-economic analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 256-268.
    16. David, Paul A. & Rothwell, Geoffrey S., 1996. "Standardization, diversity and learning: Strategies for the coevolution of technology and industrial capacity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 181-201.
    17. Yang, Ming & Nguyen, François & De T'Serclaes, Philippine & Buchner, Barbara, 2010. "Wind farm investment risks under uncertain CDM benefit in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1436-1447, March.
    18. Jain, Shashi & Roelofs, Ferry & Oosterlee, Cornelis W., 2014. "Decision-support tool for assessing future nuclear reactor generation portfolios," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 99-112.
    19. Warren, Paul & De Simone, Giuseppe, 2014. "Fuelling the future?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 5-15.
    20. Monjas-Barroso, Manuel & Balibrea-Iniesta, José, 2013. "Valuation of projects for power generation with renewable energy: A comparative study based on real regulatory options," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 335-352.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sip:dpaper:09-025. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anne Shor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cestaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.