IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/enejou/v12y1991i1_supplp255-272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cost/Benefit Perspective Of Extended Unit Service As A Decommissioning Alternative

Author

Listed:
  • James G. Hewlett

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.

Suggested Citation

  • James G. Hewlett, 1991. "A Cost/Benefit Perspective Of Extended Unit Service As A Decommissioning Alternative," The Energy Journal, , vol. 12(1_suppl), pages 255-272, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:enejou:v:12:y:1991:i:1_suppl:p:255-272
    DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol12-NoSI-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol12-NoSI-20
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol12-NoSI-20?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Joskow & Nancy L. Rose, 1985. "The Effects of Technological Change, Experience, and Environmental Regulation on the Construction Cost of Coal-Burning Generating Units," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2004. "Cost-effective environmental policy: implications of induced technological change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1099-1121, November.
    2. Anelí Bongers, 2017. "Learning and forgetting in the jet fighter aircraft industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Lovering, Jessica R. & Yip, Arthur & Nordhaus, Ted, 2016. "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 371-382.
    4. Greaker, Mads & Lund Sagen, Eirik, 2008. "Explaining experience curves for new energy technologies: A case study of liquefied natural gas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2899-2911, November.
    5. Denny Ellerman, A., 1996. "The competition between coal and natural gas the importance of sunk costs," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1-2), pages 33-42.
    6. Bernstein, David H. & Parmeter, Christopher F., 2019. "Returns to scale in electricity generation: Replicated and revisited," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 4-15.
    7. Garrone, Paola & Grilli, Luca, 2010. "Is there a relationship between public expenditures in energy R&D and carbon emissions per GDP? An empirical investigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5600-5613, October.
    8. Paul L. Joskow, 1987. "Productivity Growth and Technical Change in the Generation of Electricity," The Energy Journal, , vol. 8(1), pages 17-38, July.
    9. Jean-Paul Bouttes & Denis Haag, 1993. "L'électricité : l'intégration européenne d'une industrie de réseau," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 266(1), pages 21-30.
    10. Arthur van Benthem & Kenneth Gillingham & James Sweeney, 2008. "Learning-by-Doing and the Optimal Solar Policy in California," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 131-152.
    11. Leroux, Justin & Spiro, Daniel, 2018. "Leading the unwilling: Unilateral strategies to prevent arctic oil exploration," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 125-149.
    12. Mueller, Steffen, 2006. "Missing the spark: An investigation into the low adoption paradox of combined heat and power technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3153-3164, November.
    13. Sturm, Roland, 1999. "Cost and quality trends under managed care: is there a learning curve in behavioral health carve-out plans?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 591-602, October.
    14. Lucas W. Davis, 2012. "Prospects for Nuclear Power," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(1), pages 49-66, Winter.
    15. Paul L. Joskow, 1997. "Restructuring, Competition and Regulatory Reform in the U.S. Electricity Sector," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 119-138, Summer.
    16. Yuichiro Kamada & Fuhito Kojima, 2013. "Voter Preferences, Polarization, and Electoral Policies," Discussion Papers 12-021, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    17. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    18. Yacine Felk & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil & Patrick Cogez, 2010. "Advanced R&D for prepositioning strategies: the economics of platform shift in high technological velocity environments," Post-Print hal-00696978, HAL.
    19. Witajewski-Baltvilks, Jan & Verdolini, Elena & Tavoni, Massimo, 2015. "Bending the learning curve," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 86-99.
    20. McNerney, James & Doyne Farmer, J. & Trancik, Jessika E., 2011. "Historical costs of coal-fired electricity and implications for the future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3042-3054, June.

    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:sae:enejou:v:12:y:1991:i:1_suppl:p:255-272. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.