Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: fd0b81d6-e26e-4e65-8f2d-2eb030d55d75
Document Type: esrp
Title: ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SYSTEMS
Source: NUREG-1555
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/initial/
Revision Date: 2007-10
Chapter: 9
Section ID: 9.2.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
e prepared for inclusion in the environmental impact statement (EIS). (3) Economic Analyses—The economic cost data to be analyzed are the estimated costs of supplying electrical energy services over the expected life of the proposed project. The data should span 30 years unless there are unique factors that apply to the specific alternatives under review. In the case of options involving generation, the 30-year levelized cost should be analyzed at appropriate plant capacity factors. The cost comparison between uranium and the alternative fuel should be developed in a tabular form as shown in Table 9.2.3-2. The reviewer should review the applicant’s cost calculations and ensure that they are reasonable. The other tables provided in this ESRP include worksheets that can assist in this evaluation. NUREG-1555 9.2.3-8 October 1999 IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer should ensure that each alternative energy source and system considered has been described in sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to make an effective analysis and comparison of environmental impacts leading to a staff conclusion that the alternative is environmentally preferable, equivalent, or inferior to the proposed project. For those alternatives or combination of alternatives determined to be environmentally preferable, the reviewer should ensure that economic-cost data are available in sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to conduct benefit-cost balancing and comparisons with the proposed project leading to final staff recommendations. The reviewer should also ensure that all comparisons are made on the basis of the proposed project as supplemented with those measures and controls to limit adverse impacts that are proposed by the applicant or identified by the staff. For those alternatives eliminated from consideration, the reviewer should ensure that adequate documented justification for this action has been prepared. (1) The initial step in the evaluation of alternative energy sources