The role of the reactor size for an investment in the nuclear sector: an evaluation of not-financial parameters

The literature presents many studies about the economics of new Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). Such studies are based on Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) methods encompassing the accounts related to Construction, Operation & Maintenance, Fuel and Decommissioning. However the investment evaluation of a nuclear reactor should also include not-financial factors such as siting and grid constraints, impact on the national industrial system, etc. The Integrated model for the Competitiveness Assessment of SMRs (INCAS), developed by Politecnico di Milano cooperating with the IAEA, is designed to analyze the choice of the better Nuclear Power Plant size as a multidimensional problem. In particular the INCAS’s module “External Factors” evaluates the impact of the factors that are not considered in the traditional DCF methods. This paper presents a list of these factors, providing, for each one, the rationale and the quantification procedure; then each factor is quantified for the Italian case. The IRIS reactor has been chosen as SMR representative. The approach and the framework of the model can be applied to worldwide countries while the specific results apply to most of the European countries. The results show that SMRs have better performances than LRs with respect to the external factors, in general and in the Italian scenario in particular

Cost overruns – helping to define what they really mean

Civil engineers are often in the firing line for alleged cost overruns, particularly on major publicly funded infrastructure projects. This usually occurs when the final cost of a project is simply compared with the original estimate, even though this was published a long time ago, in different circumstances and for a quite different project to the one carried out. This paper proposes a systematic approach to ensure that cost overruns, should they occur, are more accurately defined in terms of when the initial and end costs are assessed, from which point of view, at which project stage, and including scope changes and financial assumptions. The paper refers to the UK’s £163 billion nuclear decommissioning programme