So how much does the electric power, produced on NPP cost?

It is known, that the atomic energy of all states is on the grant. So, French “atomic lobbyists” have get into debt to the state about 30 billion US dollars. In Russia Kalininskaya and Kurskskaya NPP in 1997, formally admitted bankrupts, in the same condition is Balakovskaya NPP, utilization factor of maximum capacity on which in 1997 has constituted 40,2 % at design - 77,4 %. In a difficult financial position is Ignalina and other NPPs [18], [19], [20].

The support of construction of NPP in the USA in 1950-1967 years was poured out in donation by the state in the dimension of two thirds (67 %) from plants cost. And already in 1968-1990, the volume of grants has been reduced to 21,4 % (see [21], page 3.).

In the Concept and the Program of development of atomic energy in Belarus [9], [7] developers have cited the following data at cost of the electric power produced by various sources:

NPP - 5,20 cents for kW-hour,

Combined cycle electric generating plants - 7,02 cents for kW-hour,

Gas-and-oil-burning power plants - 8,54 cents for kW-hour,

Coal-fired stations - 10,49 cents for kW-hour

As a result of the use of incorrect basic data, developers of the Program have drawn the conclusion, that the NPP will already produce a profit at the tariff of 6,3 cents/kW-hour, and the Combined cycle electric generating plant - only at the tariff of 8,36 cents / kW-hour. (see [7], page 34).

Thus, according to sticklers of construction of NPP, the NPPs constructed in Belarus, will be more economic, than the economic from thermal power stations – steam and gas. This conclusion also was a basis for ideology of construction of NPP in Belarus. In all the world, as soon as a part of costs of NPP have ceased to write off on atomic bombs, cost of the electric power from NPP has appeared much bigger, than from sources with organic fuel.

Under no circumstances nuclear energy sources are not capable to compete with electric power plants on organic fuel. The most economic of them are steam-gaseous installations which efficiency compounds approximately 50 %. Furthermore, their building is connected to small capital costs, small terms of construction and fast recoupment. Because of these circumstances, states - exporters of the equipment for NPP have stopped construction of NPPs at their countries. In Belarus cost of the electric power, in opinion of authors [9], [7], appears for some reason more than twice below, than in the states which developed and produced reactors. So what is that: “Belarusian phenomenon”, or the next impudent lie?

It is interesting to look in that part of the Program of ours atomic lobbyists in which they «balance» cost prices of «the nuclear electric power «.

On their estimations this cost price is composed from the following expenditure account numbers:

Capital amounting - 2,64 cents /kW-hour

Fuel amounting - 0,49 cents / kW-hour.

Direct component - 1,61 cents / kW-hour

Estimated risk - 0,46 cents / kW-hour.

Total - 5,20 cents / kW-hour

The analysis of these data, shows, that in them the considerable deviations from the global practice actual and normative data are allowed. It would not be desirable to hinder readers sorting of juggling on each of the listed points. Therefore we shall bring only result received by us.

The assessment of specific costs of production of the electric power by NPPs with correcting of only abundantly clear “errors” of authors of the Belarusian Program and even disregarding of some difficultly estimated costs results in the specific cost price of the electric power produced by NPPs in 18,54 cents / kW-hour

How you like this «small allowance»? Only about 5,20 cents /kW-hour up to 18,54 cents / kW-hour! “Error” in 3,5 times!

In-the publication [21] on page 6 is presented the analysis of cost price of the electric power, generated on US NPPs for the period from 1970 until 1990 years (see figs 4). On the same figure the German data [26] and prognosis value of the cost price on the year 2000 on the US data (see [6], page 136) are cited. One can see the well-defined tendency of growth of the cost price of the electric power produced by NPP. In 1999, we had, proceeding from the indicated tendency, value of the cost price - 14,5 cents/kW-hour, that come nearer to value 18.54 cents/kW-year received in our estimated accounts. Second, the cost price of the electric power at the indicated alternatives of reconstruction of this plant has constituted 2,64 and 2,83 cents/kW-hour. With allowance for profitability the cost of the electric power is in the dimension 3,4 and 3,7 cents /kW-hour, that exactly fits to intervals of the prices for the electric power in Russia, indicated in research of professor A.V.Yablokov [6].

All of that leads us to the following conclusion: the electric power produced by NPP, even disregarding some rather essential items of expenses, appears, at least, in 5 times more expensive than the electric

Power produced on steam-gaseous installations (SGI). And at that moment when in developed countries is formed manifest outbreak for the benefit of SGI, Belarus attempt to drive out in the nuclear power dead spot.

Fig. 4. Change of cost of the electric power produced by NPP, and prognosis level for year 2000.

In the same place on fig. 4 values of the cost price of «the nuclear electric power” from the Program [7] for 1993 year and from A.P.Jakushev's report [13] for 1998 year are introduced. Whence these numbers are taken, it is difficult even to assume. These values appear sharply underestimated and are not entered at all in the indicated legitimacy. Such levels of the cost price occurred accordingly in 1982 and in 1974, but they were forgotten long time ago.

Rather interesting data are introduced in-publication [27] from which follows, that in the private power companies of the USA and the Great Britain, which are bearing wholly all charges on production of the electric power, costs 10-20 cents/kW-hour. And these data are reported at the Conference in 1991. Since then cost of the electric power produced by NPP, at least, did not reduce.

The myth about cheapness of power generated on NPP is obstinately sustained also, because that Belarus neighbours - Ignalina (Lithuania) and Smolensk (Russia) NPPs would sell to us the electric power on the knockdown price (2,5-2,8 cents/kW-hour). And in fact really sell, and furthermore with pleasure. The miracle, is not it? Alas, there is no miracle here. In fact capital costs on construction of these plants, as well as other NPPs which were made by the Soviet Union, were charged form the USSR budget, which is paid by us from our taxes. Owners of these plants do not want to know past debts and do not reflect on debts of the future (decommission, waste storage and many other things) as and without them electric power is sold with an effort. If remove from settlement accounting of atomic lobbyists capital amounting, that was paid long time ago from the budget of the Soviet Union (see above), and the estimated risk which today’s plants does not pay back to anybody then only current expenses (fuel and operational or stationary) will stay, that in the sum gives 2,1 cents/kW-hour. As you see, something remains from proceeds and in the income to present owners of these NPPs. That is the secret of “cheapness” of the power purchased on Ignalina and Smolensk NPP!

Why Lithuania still exports power to Belarus, despite of the knockdown price of electrical power and huge debt of “Belenergo” to the Lithuanian power grid? Both parties hold back about it. And the cause here in the following. After disintegration of the USSR, the Ignalina NPP was disconnected from the Soviet power grid as also the power grid of the Russian Federation has surplus of the electric power. Actual load of the Ignalina NPP (see [17] IAEA report) compounds 54-58 %. In Lithuania 81,5 % of the consumed electric power is produced on the NPP. About half of the electric power exports to Belarus. If to disconnect the NPP from “Belenergo” the load factor of plant will decrease to 27-29 %. At such mode of operation of reactors such as RBMK (same as on Chernobyl NPP, but more powerful) is involved in the hardest consequences. Also, Lithuania is compelled to supply Belarus with the electric power, in spite of big debt of “Belenergo”.

Let’s return, however, to comparative assessments of economic parameters of NPP and sources on an organic fuel. We shall dare to doubt in certainty of the works [9] indicated by authors, [7] data on steam-gaseous and coal-fired plants. In the detailed document [28] are presented the comprehensive materials about technical re-equipment of Bereyozovskaya state district power station in Belarus. In the project documentation alternatives of use of the steam-gaseous and coal-fired units with the total electrical output, accordingly 900 and 990 MW (tab. 3) are considered.

First, cost value of reconstruction and technical re-equipment obtained for the indicated alternatives – equal to 487 and 829 million US dollars that is incomparably lower than cost of NPP of analogous power.

Tab. 3.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14