第36回原子力委員会
資料第2-3号

米国 原子力エネルギー協会（ＮＥＩ）における根拠に基づく情報の提供（事例）【情報提供の分野】
 Why Nuclear Energy
•
•
•
•
•

Why Nuclear Energy
Clean Air Energy
Value of Electricity Diversity
Reliable & Affordable Energy
Economic Growth & Job Creation

 Issues & Policy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Delivering the Nuclear Promise
Congressional Resource Guide
State & Local Policies
New Nuclear Energy Facilities
Second License Renewal for Nuclear Plants
Exports & Trade
Protecting the Environment
Safety and Security
Nuclear Waste Management
Economics
事例①
Nuclear Fuel Supply ① 「Clean Air Energy」をクリックするとP２の情報が表示される
Policy Resources②Ｐ２中の「Climate Change」をクリックするとP３及び４の情報が表示される※Ｐ４中の「Resources」に列挙されている出典
では、他機関へのリンクが貼ってあり、根拠
1
情報まで辿れる Knowledge Center
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

FAQ About Nuclear Energy
Powered by Our People
Map of US Nuclear Plants
How Nuclear Reactors Work
Nuclear Statistics
Nuclear Fuel Processes
Industry Innovation
Other Nuclear Energy Applications
Backgrounders
Public Opinion

 Careers & Education （内訳省略）
 Conferences （内訳省略）
 News & Media （内訳省略）
事例②① 「FAQ About Nuclear Energy」をクリックするとＰ５～１０の情報が表示される② Ｐ８中の「Economic Benefit」の“an analysis”をクリックすると根拠情報「White Paper (P１１～１５)」のダウンロードページが表示される③ 根拠情報「White Paper(P１１～１５)」※米国 原子力エネルギー境界（ＮＥＩ）のウェブサイト（http://www.nei.org/）を基に内閣府作成

Clean Air Energy - Nuclear Energy Institute

1/1

事例①
▼

Clean Air Energy
Concern about clean air is a main reason that 63 reactors are under construction around the world—
including four in the United States.

Clean Air Benefits
Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of electricity that doesn’t emit any air pollution—and the only
one that can produce large amounts of electricity around the clock. Nuclear energy has a major role inprotecting America’s air quality. Learn more>>

Climate Change「Climate Change」をクリックするとＰ３及び４の情報が表示される

While some predict meaningful climate change policy may take several years to finalize, nuclear energy,
which provides almost two-thirds of America’s clean-air electricity, must continue to be part of theenergy mix to solve our clean air challenges. Learn more>>

Life-Cycle Emissions
All energy sources produce greenhouse gases in the life cycle of a facility—from construction tooperation. However, several independent studies show that nuclear energy’s “life-cycle” emissions ofcarbon dioxide are comparable to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and hydro power.
Learn more>>2

Climate Change - Nuclear Energy Institute

1/2

Climate Change
To move toward a clean-energy, low-carbon economy, nuclear energy must continue to be a part of theenergy mix.
Nuclear energy facilities produce no air pollution that could threaten our atmosphere by causing groundlevel ozone formation, smog and acid rain. The principal greenhouse gas emitted by human activities iscarbon dioxide, and about 40 percent of our CO2 emissions come from burning fossil fuels to generate
electricity. More nuclear energy means less air pollution.

3

Climate Change - Nuclear Energy Institute

2/2▼
There is widespread agreement that nuclear energy is part of the climate change solution. Mainstream
analyses conducted by independent organizations have shown that reducing carbon emissions will
require a diverse energy portfolio and that nuclear energy is the only low-carbon option to help meet
forecasted global electricity demand.

Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Analysis of the American Power Act of 2010
(Kerry/Lieberman), June 2010. The core policy scenario for reducing greenhouse gas emissions would
require more than doubling total nuclear capacity by 2050. If all existing U.S. operating reactors retire at
60 years, the United States will need to build another 253 gigawatts of nuclear capacity (about 181 newreactors).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of2009 (H.R. 2454, Waxman/Markey),” June 2009. The core policy scenario for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions projects that the United States will increase nuclear power generation by 150% (about 180 new
nuclear reactors) by 2050.
Joint Statement of the Academies of Science for the G8+5 Countries, “Climate Change Adaptation andthe Transition to a Low Carbon Economy,” 2008. The statement recommends accelerating the transition toa “low carbon economy,” producing more energy from such low-carbon sources as nuclear power.
Electric Power Research Institute, “Prism/MERGE Analyses: 2009 Update.” The technical potential exists
for the electric sector to achieve a 41 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 levels by
2030 using a full portfolio of technologies that includes 45 new nuclear reactors.
Energy Information Administration, “Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American
Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” August 2009. The basic scenario projects that the United States
would need 96 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity (almost 70 reactors) by 2030.
OECD/International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2009,” 2009. Stabilizing atmosphericconcentrations of carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million would require nearly doubling nuclear capacity
by 2030.
Business Roundtable, “The Balancing Act: Climate Change, Energy Security and the U.S. Economy," 2009.
“As the only existing, proven and scalable low-carbon baseload generation technology, nuclear power willbe critical to managing the impending turnover in baseload capacity in a sustainable manner.”
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, “Towards a Low-Carbon Economy,” 2009. “Existing
technologies such as … nuclear have to be extensively deployed across countries to implement concrete
mitigation actions.”※Resourcesに他機関のリンクを貼ってある。
青字の箇所をクリックすれば根拠情報まで辿れる。

4

FAQ About Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Energy Institute

1/6

事例②

FAQ About Nuclear Energy+ The Basics
What is nuclear energy?
Nuclear power plants split uranium atoms inside a reactor in a process called fission. At a nuclear energy
facility, the heat from fission is used to produce steam, which spins a turbine to generate electricity.
How does nuclear energy compare to other power sources?
A single uranium fuel pellet the size of a pencil eraser contains the same amount of energy as 17,000
cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of oil.
Does nuclear energy produce greenhouse gases?
There are no emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide during the production ofelectricity at nuclear energy facilities. Nuclear energy is the only clean-air source of energy that produces
electricity 24 hours a day, every day.
Is nuclear energy considered a renewable energy source?
A renewable energy source uses an essentially limitless supply of fuel, whether wind, the sun or water.
Nuclear energy is often called a sustainable energy source, because there is enough uranium in theworld to fuel reactors for 100 years or more.
Do nuclear energy facilities require large areas of land?
Compared to other non-emitting sources, nuclear energy facilities are relatively compact. The amount ofelectricity produced by a multi-reactor nuclear power plant would require about 45 square miles ofphotovoltaic panels or about 260 square miles of wind turbines.
Do Americans support using nuclear energy?
A March 2015 national poll of 1,000 adults by Bisconti Research Inc. found that solid majorities havefavorable opinions about nuclear energy and building new nuclear power plants. Sixty-nine percent ofAmericans favor the use of nuclear energy—up from 65 percent in 2012.
Sixty-two percent of respondents agree that the industry should build more nuclear power plants in the
future and almost 80 percent of respondents agree that nuclear power is an important part of ourenergy future.

+ Radiation

5

FAQ About Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Energy Institute

2/6

The radiation one associates with a nuclear energy facility are particles, such as alpha rays and gamma
rays, emitted by an atomic nucleus as a result of the fission process.
Do nuclear power plants release radioactive material?
Yes, but in extremely small levels that are regulated by the federal government. Nuclear power plants
produce radioactive gases and liquid wastes during normal operation. A plant has tanks designed tostore gas and liquid radioactive materials that are generated during normal operation. The radioactive
material is held for a period of time to allow for the radioactivity level to decrease before being treated
and/or released in a planned, monitored way. This keeps the amount of radioactive material in releases
low and well within federal limits.
Radiation releases that are not made in accordance with procedures, or are above regulatory limits, arereported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to the state where the facility is operating.
How is radiation measured around nuclear energy facilities?
During normal operations, very little radiation is released. Multiple independent studies have foundhave no health effects on the neighboring population. Radiation monitors surrounding the plant site
provide real-time data on radiation levels. Additionally, radioactive materials that could cause radiation
exposure near nuclear energy facilities are monitored by sampling air, food and water supplies.
Nuclear energy facilities are non-polluting and use multiple, redundant layers of safety to containradiation within the reactor. There has never been an event in the United States that resulted in harmfrom radiation exposure. Radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan did not cause any
immediate health effects, according to a United Nations panel of scientific experts. It is unlikely to beable to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public, the panel found.

+ Safety
Are nuclear energy facilities safe?
Yes. The industry’s first commitment is to operate nuclear energy facilities safely. After more than a halfcentury of commercial nuclear energy production in the United States—more than 3,500 reactor yearsof operation—there have been no radiation-related health effects linked to their operation.
Studies by the National Cancer Institute, The United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects ofAtomic Radiation, the National Research Council’s BEIR VII study group and the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements all show that U.S. nuclear power plants cause no harm topeople in neighboring communities.
Are facilities as safe for workers as for the public?
Yes. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is a smaller chance that a worker at a nuclear
plant would be injured than employees at a fast food restaurant or a grocery store. As part of theindustry’s commitment to a safe workplace, employees are continuously monitored for radiation
exposure, for which strict limits are enforced by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Could an accident like the one at Chernobyl happen at a U.S. plant?
No. It is physically impossible for a U.S. commercial nuclear energy facility to run out of control andexplode like the Chernobyl RBMK reactor design did. During power operations, when the temperature
within the reactor reaches a predetermined level, the fission process is naturally suppressed so the6FAQ About Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Energy Institute

3/6

What about the Three Mile Island accident?
More than a dozen health studies and continuous environmental monitoring have found no effect on
public health or the environment near the Three Mile Island nuclear energy facility in Pennsylvania.
Companies that operate nuclear energy facilities have developed proven emergency response plans toprotect the public in the event of an emergency. These plans often are used to evacuate citizens during
natural disasters such as hurricanes and other storms.
Risks from nuclear energy are considerably smaller than many everyday activities, such as driving a car.

+ New Nuclear Facilities
How many new reactors are being built?
Construction is under way on two reactors in Georgia, two in South Carolina and one in Tennessee andanother 67 new reactors are being built in 15 countries. Some of these countries, such as the United
Arab Emirates, are building their first reactors. Others, such as China and India, already have made asignificant commitment to nuclear energy.
Why should new plants be built in the United States?
The U.S. Department of Energy projects that demand for electricity in the United States will rise 22
percent by 2040. That means our nation will need hundreds of new power plants to provide electricity
for our homes and continued economic growth. Maintaining nuclear energy's current 20 percent shareof electricity production will require building one reactor every year starting in 2016, or 20 to 25 newreactors by 2040, according to DOE forecasts.
Fourteen companies and consortia are studying, licensing or building 26 reactors in the United States.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing six combined license applications from fivecompanies and consortia for ten nuclear power plants.
Will there be the kinds of delays and cost overruns that affected some earlier projects?
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission process for licensing new reactors is more efficient and theindustry is taking advantage of modular construction techniques to make schedules more attractive.
Construction of next-generation nuclear power plants will differ from the previous process, in which
companies built plants as the designs and regulations were evolving. Facilities under construction haveall design-related safety issues resolved before construction begins, avoiding delays.
The entire process, from starting the license application to the NRC to completing the new power plant,
takes about nine years, four of them for construction.

+ New Reactor Cost
How much do nuclear energy facilities cost?
Nuclear power plants are capital-intensive projects, with construction costs estimated at $6 billion to $8
billion for a large reactor. Once built, operating costs for electricity are low.
How are utilities managing cost recovery for the construction of new reactors?

7

FAQ About Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Energy Institute

4/6

By paying the cost of building a new reactor as it is incurred, electric companies can benefit theircustomers by reduced financing costs. This is called Construction Work in Progress (CWIP). While there
may be a small charge added to the monthly utility bill, it facilitates paying off finance charges
immediately rather than over the entire life of the plant. This avoids "interest-on-interest" charges andprevents a much larger one-time increase in electric rates when the reactor becomes operational.
Improved cash flow to the electric company leads to a stronger financial rating, which in turn results inlower interest costs for the nuclear energy project and all other investments the utility makes over thelong term.
How much is added to the monthly electricity bill? The amount differs depending on the nature of the
project and what is allowed by the state government and regulator. For example, Florida Power & Light
said that the cost recovery charge for its projects was about $1.65 per month to a typical customer. The
fee financed $130 million for upgrades to the St. Lucie and Turkey Point nuclear power plants.
What are loan guarantees for nuclear energy facilities?
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a program to provide federally backed loan guarantees forbuilding new nuclear energy facilities; however the Department of Energy has not completed its review
of any applications to use this financing tool. Loan guarantees provide government backing to ensure
construction loans will be repaid in the rare event of default. The guarantee results in lower interest
rates for an energy company building a reactor, which passes on the savings to its customers. They areneither grants nor subsidies. Unlike loan guarantees for other sources of energy, nuclear energy
facilities must pay the government a fee for granting the guarantee.

+ Economic Benefits 「an analysis」をクリックするとHow do nuclear energy plants benefit the economy?

「White Papers」のダウンロード
ページにとび、根拠情報にたどり着く。

Every dollar spent by the typical nuclear power plant results in the creation of $1.04 in the local
community, $1.18 in the state economy, and $1.87 in the U.S. economy, according to an analysis of
23 nuclear plants representing 41 reactors.
Companies operating a typical nuclear plant pay about $16 million in state and local taxes annually.
These tax dollars benefit schools, roads and other state and local infrastructure. Each company typicallypays federal taxes of $67 million annually.
In addition, nuclear energy facilities typically employ up to 3,500 people during construction and 400 to
700 people during operation, at salaries 36 percent higher than average in the local area. It produces
approximately $470 million annually in sales of goods and services in the local community.
The construction of new reactors depends on a robust supply chain to support manufacturing. Nuclear
plants are comprised of hundreds of components and subcomponents, whose construction requires a
deep and diverse supplier base. More than 22,500 companies provide $14.2 billion in components andservices to the U.S. nuclear energy industry each year.
How do suppliers thrive when only 5 nuclear facilities are under construction?
Nuclear energy facilities update their equipment over time and also need replacement parts, providing a
steady stream of orders through the supply chain. Beyond this ongoing activity, the U.S. nuclear energy
industry competes in international markets. The more successful this effort, the more manufacturers
contribute to domestic job creation and economic development.
8

FAQ About Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Energy Institute

5/6

Nuclear energy facilities employ workers across myriad disciplines. Highly trained and licensed
employees operate reactors and are supported by engineers of various types, health physicists,
instrumentation and control workers and other professionals, as well as skilled craftspeople such as
welders and mechanics.
How do nuclear energy facilities contribute to their communities?
Nuclear power plants often are located in rural communities that benefit considerably from a large
industrial complex. Companies that operate nuclear energy facilities are involved in the life of nearby
towns and communities, offering college scholarships for related professions, participating in charities
and sponsoring other activities. Energy education centers at many facilities teach schoolchildren about
nuclear energy as well as about other forms of electricity generation. Because the plants operate over
several decades, their presence encourages continuity in their communities by offering employment
over more than one generation of families and workers.
Nuclear energy facilities enhance the habitat around the plant, too. Many take an active role inpreserving the local flora and fauna, often earning commendations from their communities and fromenvironmental and conservation groups.
For example, the St. Lucie facility in Florida has devoted considerable resources to tracking andpreserving the health of sea turtles attracted to breeding areas near the plant. At the Peach Bottom
facility in Pennsylvania, Exelon Corp. developed a biodiversity team to mold its riverside site into an evenmore hospitable residence for its furred and feathered co-inhabitants, including bats, white-tailed deer,turkeys, foxes, bald eagles and osprey.

+ Safely Managing Used Nuclear Fuel
What is used nuclear fuel?
Used uranium fuel assemblies from commercial reactors still have 90 percent of the original potential
energy, but are stored at nuclear energy facilities where they are used.
How is used nuclear fuel stored?
Most plants store used fuel in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water, which acts as a naturalbarrier for radiation from the used fuel. The water also keeps the fuel cool while it becomes lessradioactive. The water itself does not leave the used fuel pool, rather is constantly circulated to maintaina suitable temperature.
After at least five years of storage in the used fuel pool, the rods can be moved into large, heavily
shielded concrete and steel storage containers, whose designs must be approved by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. There it awaits removal by the U.S. Department of Energy to a disposal facility.
Is the used fuel stored at nuclear energy facilities safe?
Used fuel storage at nuclear plant sites is safe and secure. However, centralized temporary storage atvolunteer locations would enable the movement of used fuel from both decommissioned and operating
plants before a repository begins operating. This would fulfill the government’s legal responsibility totake possession of used nuclear fuel.
What is low-level radioactive waste?
Low-level radioactive waste is a byproduct of the beneficial uses of radioactive materials, including

9

FAQ About Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Energy Institute

6/6▼
It is solid material that can be safely transported under strict regulations established by the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Low-level radioactive waste
usually consists of items such as gloves and other protective clothing, glass and plastic laboratory
supplies, machine parts and tools, and disposable medical items that have come in contact withradioactive materials.

+ After Fukushima
How did the 2011 nuclear accident in Japan affect the nuclear energy industry?
In the United States, the nuclear energy industry and the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission
immediately took steps to make facilities even safer than before the accident. Most other countries took
a similar approach to the United States and kept their facilities operating. Germany and Switzerland arephasing out their nuclear energy facilities. Japan shut down its plants, but has restarted one and may
restart others after they make safety upgrades.
What did the U.S. nuclear energy industry do in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident?
The industry quickly implemented a safety enhacement strategy to ensure that plants have theadditional equipment needed to respond to extreme natural events such as the tsunami in Japan. The
industry initiative will provide additional sources of water and electric power to keep the reactor andused fuel pool cool if electricity from the grid is unavailable, as it was in Japan. Additional generators,
batteries, water pumps and other emergency equipment have been purchased at each site. In addition,
regional response centers in Tennessee and Arizona will maintain more emergency equipment that canbe dispatched quickly to any facility that needs it.
These enhancements follow additional safety measures that were implemented following the 2001
terrorist attacks. Safety enhancements made over more than 40 years, including new processes andprocedures based on lessons learned from the accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and in Japan in
2011, have resulted in sustained high levels of safety.
The industry is implementing additional safety measures required by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission through 2016.

10

Nuclear Costs in Context

Prepared by the
Nuclear Energy Institute

April 2016

The Nuclear Energy Institute is
the nuclear energy industry’s
policy organization.
This white paper and additional
information about nuclear energy
are available at nei.org.
1201 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
NEI.org© 2016 Nuclear Energy Institute11

Total Generating Costs
In 2015, the average total
generating cost for nuclear
energy was $35.50 per
megawatt-hour. Total
generating costs include
capital, fuel and operating
costs – all the costs
necessary to produce
electricity from a nuclear
power plant. Cost information
for the U.S. nuclear fleet iscollected by the Electric Utility
Cost Group with prior years
converted to 2015 dollars for more accurate historical comparisons.
Three-quarters of nuclear power in the U.S. comes from plants with multiple
reactors. The ability to spread costs over a greater amount of electricity productionmeans that the generating
cost at multi-unit sites isgenerally lower than at
single-unit plants. In 2015,
the total generating cost at
multi-unit plants was $32.90
per megawatt-hour compared
to $44.52 for single-unit
plants.
The 2015 generating costs
were 2.4 percent lower thanin 2014 and almost 11
percent below the 2012
costs. Prior to the 2012 peak,
nuclear generating costs had
increased steadily over theprevious decade. Between 2002 and 2015, fuel costs increased 21 percent, capital
expenditures by 103 percent, operating costs by 11 percent (in 2015 dollars per
megawatt-hour). Total generating costs are up 26 percent in the last 13 years.

CapitalIndustrywide capital spending increased from $4.4 billion a year in 2006 (2015dollars), peaked at $8.7 billion in 2012, and dropped to $6.25 billion in 2015.

2© 2016 Nuclear Energy Institute12Capital investment took a step change up in about 2003, leveled off for several
years, then took another step change in 2009 and has declined over the last two
years. These inflections are the result of a few major items: a series of vessel headreplacements, steam generator replacements and other upgrades as companies
prepared their plants for operation after the initial 40-year license, and power
uprates to increase output from existing plants. As a result of these investments, 81of the 99 operating reactors have received twenty-year license renewals and 92 of
the operating reactors have been approved for uprates that have added over 7,000
megawatts of capacity.
Capital spending on uprates and items necessary for operation beyond 40 years
should moderate as most plants complete these efforts. Capital investments in
uprates peaked at $2.5 billion in 2012 but declined to $315 million in 2014. Thisdecline has been offset in other areas where spending has increased. Capitalspending to meet regulatory requirements was around $1 billion in 2007 and 2008
before jumping to $1.8 billion in 2010 and holding near that level until reaching apeak of almost $2 billion in 2014. This increase began with significant investments
post-9/11 to enhance security, followed by expenditures for post-Fukushima items,
which totaled $1 billion in 2014. As the industry completes Fukushima-related safety
upgrades, regulatory capex should also moderate, and revert toward 2007-2008
levels. A further breakdown of capital costs for 2015 will be available at a later date.

Operations
Operations costs increased over the last twelve years from $18.59 per megawatthour in 2002 to $20.92 per megawatt-hour in 2014. Operations costs have declined
4 percent from the peak in 2011.
This increase in operations costs was not driven by any single category. Operations
costs in the 2002-2008 periods are similar to where money was being spent in the
2009-2014 period. However, operations costs have remained flat compared to thepast decade. Between 2006 and 2010, operations costs increased 16 percent while,over the past five years, the increase was only 1 percent. A further breakdown ofoperations costs for 2015 will be available at a later date.

Fuel
Fuel costs represent 15-20 percent of the total generating cost. Fuel costs
experienced a relatively rapid increase from 2009 to 2013. This was largely the
result of an escalation in uranium prices that peaked in 2008. Since uranium ispurchased far in advance of refueling and resides in the reactor for four to six years,
the effect of this commodity price spike persists for a long time after the priceincrease actually occurred.

3© 2016 Nuclear Energy Institute13

Economic Pressures Facing Nuclear Plants
Since 2013, five nuclear reactors (Crystal River 3 in Florida, San Onofre 2 and 3 in
California, Kewaunee in Wisconsin, and Vermont Yankee) have shut down
permanently. Entergy announced in October 2015 that it would close its Pilgrim
plant in Massachusetts by June 2019, and possibly sooner. And in February 2016,
Entergy announced that it would shut down its FitzPatrick nuclear plant in upstate
New York in early 2017.
Crystal River and San Onofre shut down due to failed steam generator replacements– unique situations that are unlikely to be repeated. Since the Surry nuclear power
plant in Virginia replaced its steam generators in the early 1980s, approximately 110
reactors around the world have replaced their steam generators (including 57
reactors in the United States), in what has become a routine practice.
Kewaunee, Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim and FitzPatrick – all in competitive markets –fell victim to a combination of market-related factors (and, in some cases, acombination of several factors), including:

Sustained low natural gas prices, which are suppressing prices in wholesale
power markets, and will continue to do so.



Relatively low growth (in some markets, no growth) in electricity demand due
partly to subpar economic performance since the 2008 recession, partly togreater efficiency.

Federal and state mandates for renewable generation, which suppress prices,
particularly during off-peak hours (when wind generation is highest and theelectricity is needed the least). For example, the federal production tax credit
allows wind producers to bid negative prices, which places baseload plants at
a disadvantage. Some nuclear plants in Illinois see negative prices as muchas 10-11 percent of the off-peak hours and 5-6 percent of all hours.

Transmission constraints, which require a power plant to pay a congestion
charge or penalty to move its power on to the grid. Certain nuclear plants atparticularly congested points on the grid pay a penalty of $6-9 per megawatthour to move their power out.

Market designs that do not compensate the baseload nuclear plants for thevalue they provide to the grid, and market policies and practices – e.g.,reliance on out-of-market revenues – that tend to suppress prices.

The Kewaunee, Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim and FitzPatrick nuclear plants are the only
casualties to date, but there are other nuclear stations at risk.

4© 2016 Nuclear Energy Institute14

Economic Impact of Nuclear Plant Closures

Kewaunee and Vermont Yankee were both highly reliable plants with high capacity
factors and relatively low generating costs. Allowing these facilities to close will havelong-term economic consequences: replacement generating capacity, when needed,
will produce more costly electricity, fewer jobs that will pay less, and more pollution.
In 2015, on average, U.S. nuclear power plants produced electricity for almost $36
per megawatt-hour. The smaller single-unit plants like Kewaunee and Vermont
Yankee were a little more costly – about $44 per megawatt-hour. The larger, multiunit sites were less costly – in the $33 per megawatt-hour range. The electricity
these plants produces will likely be replaced with either combined cycle gas-fired
capacity at a levelized cost of over $70 per megawatt-hour (see graph, “Better Deal
for Consumers ... Existing Nuclear or New Combined Cycle Gas?”).
5© 2016 Nuclear Energy Institute15