Explore the vast range of titles available.

Energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) can benefit public health and the climate by displacing emissions from fossil-fuelled electrical generating units (EGUs). Benefits can vary substantially by EE/RE installation type and location, due to differing electricity generation or savings by location, characteristics of the electrical grid and displaced power plants, along with population patterns. However, previous studies have not formally examined how these dimensions individually and jointly contribute to variability in benefits across locations or EE/RE types. Here, we develop and demonstrate a high-resolution model to simulate and compare the monetized public health and climate benefits of four different illustrative EE/RE installation types in six different locations within the Mid-Atlantic and Lower Great Lakes of the United States. Annual benefits using central estimates for all pathways ranged from US$5.7–US$210 million (US$14–US$170 MWh −1 ), emphasizing the importance of site-specific information in accurately estimating public health and climate benefits of EE/RE efforts. Clean energy can provide different health and environmental benefits depending on location. Modelling shows that renewable energy and energy-saving projects could deliver annual benefits of up to US$210 million across six locations in the USA.

Contingency factors are a standard ingredient in all types of estimated costs. The actual contingency figure used, however, is always open to question. Given the absence of large-scale decommissioning projects, the long future time reference, the history of early shutdowns, and possibility of accidents, there continues to be a substantial controversy regarding the contingency level that is most appropriate. In this chapter, Bruce Biewald and Stephen Bernow present a critical review of the matter of contingency factors, arguing that current common levels in the neighborhood of 25 percent are too low.

The November 23, 1989, issue of Public Utilities Fortnightly included an article titled \"Nuclear Generating Companies: A Framework for Reviving Nuclear Power,\" by John O. Sillin and John P. Jackson. The authors painted a picture of impending electrical power supply shortages across the US and recommended an all-out effort to meet this crisis, emphasizing the potential role for nuclear generating companies (NUGENCO). It is very unlikely that electricity supply shortages will occur on a national basis as is claimed in the article. Even as supply requirements do emerge, additional nuclear capacity offers an undesirable solution. Nuclear generation is uneconomical and unreliable compared with other available resource options. NUGENCOs are motivated, in large part, by a desire to circumvent state regulation. In addition, they exacerbate the problem of ensuring the responsible and safe cleanup of radioactive wastes. There are many options available to serve demands for electricity as they increase so long as utilities take their obligation to serve seriously and continue to procure new resources according to rational system plans.

In light of the uncertainty inherent in estimates of nuclear plant decommissioning cost, decision makers should consider increasing current funding for nuclear plants to ensure available funds needed for a safe, orderly, and timely decommissioning process. Analysis of the task of decommissioning cost estimation indicates that the actual costs of large, complex, untried projects routinely have surpassed estimated costs significantly. Research by RAND Corp. and the Electric Power Research Institute finds decommissioning to be a relatively uncertain process with a relatively high likelihood of cost increases. However, the risk of finding decommissioning funds to be inadequate can be lessened by application of appropriate contingency factors to the engineering estimates of decommissioning cost. Also, a funding approach that uses level contributions, such as that used by the California Public Utilities Commission for Diablo Canyon, will reduce the risk of insufficient funds.

Based on cost and performance data collected and analyzed for nuclear power plants over the past 7 years by Energy Systems Research Group Inc. (ESRG), boiling water reactors (BWR) have performed poorly by many criteria. Operation and maintenance costs for BWRs have surpassed those for pressurized water reactors (PWR) in every year between 1972 and 1985, and capital additions costs have been significantly higher at BWRs than at PWRs. Also, from 1975 through 1985, BWR capacity factors have averaged approximately 4% lower than PWR capacity factors. Based on an ESRG-compiled database of 70 site-specific estimates of decommissioning costs, BWRs, on average, have been expected to cost about 25% more to decommission than PWRs. In addition, analysis of data collected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 1973 through 1984 indicates that worker radiation exposure has been higher at BWRs than at PWRs every year since 1974.

Buyers generally acquire a mix of long- and short-term contracts, with the goal of finding the optimal trade-off between price and flexibility. The contract lengths selected generally depend on the lifecycle of the industry and product. One recent trend in industrial purchasing is a decrease in the number of suppliers and an increase in longer-term contracts and cooperative supplier relationships. For many commodities, people see the benefits of long-term contracting in the futures markets: The further away the delivery date, the lower the current contract price. Unfortunately, sources of equivalent information on electricity futures are few and far between. Recent run-ups in oil and natural gas prices may create a price premium for longer-term electricity contracts. There is no support in theory or practice for the notion that longer contract durations systematically result in higher prices. Empirical evidence in electricity markets fails to demonstrate the existence of a significant and validly comparable price premiums for longer-term contracts.