First, many studies or articles focus on the EPR, the “first” model of reactors of generation III. A new study published in March by IEA reveals that the electricity from Flamanville’s EPR (56 to 92 $/MWh) will be two times more expansive than electricity produced by the Korean reactor winner of Abu Dhabi market – before the French consortium and his EPR – (29 to 42 $/MWh). But this study underlines that this difference is mainly due to construction time and process, in relation with the fact that Korea is the only country managing a large nuclear program today. Here is a key point: the EPR is at the early beginning of its exploitation. Taking into account the specificities and security requirements during the construction of a nuclear power plant, the construction cost may decrease drastically with experience (already 500 €/kW between Olkilouto and Flamanville…). Sign of the importance of capitalizing experience, Finland is said to be discussing with Areva for a second EPR, in spite of the huge delay and tensions resulting of the actual construction. Understanding better the lack of coordination between Areva and Finnish companies should reduce the cost of future cooperation.

The other point to notice is the strong competition that is setting up between vendors. France, historical leader in nuclear power, is now facing a fierce competition with Korea, as mentioned below, and tomorrow Russia or China, with electricity cost from nuclear power plants announced down to 30 $/MWh by Chinese. This competition will have repercussions on the whole sector and oblige other actors of nuclear construction to improve their economical competitivity. However, contrasting with it, the security factor is at stake. Areva claims the highest security conditions ever reached, with of course the cost following, whereas low-price companies, as Chinese ones, reduce cost by basing their product on old French models.

To conclude, we can think that future investors in electricity power plants will have to focus on a double but simultaneous tradeoff between environmental and economical issues. The first one will be to chose, renewable energies apart, between nuclear or fossil energy – coal, coal with CO2 gathering, gas. Today, on a pure economical level, there is no clearly dominating technology, with estimated costs around 80 $/MWh for each one. The second issue will be the security level and the tolerance we can support to accidents and pollution, with a risk to see the emergence of a low-cost and low-security nuclear industry, for countries with limited funds but increasing power needs.

You may be interested in taking a look at our recent study in which we reach similar conclusions. I would be certainly grateful to have your comments on it.
http://www.iit.upcomillas.es/~pedrol/documents/economicsnuclear.pdf