1、 EXISTING AND FUTURE ELECTFUC GENERATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR NATURAL GAS Prepared for: American Gas Association Policy Analysis Group 1515 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22209 Submitted by: Harry Chernoff Science Applications International Corporation 1710 Goodridge Dr. McLean, VA 22102 October, 1996
2、TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0. BACKGROUND AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 EXISTING ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY 3 2.1. Coal-fired and Nuclear Powerplant Capacity. Age. and Plant Costs by NERC Regions 3 2.2 Total Plant Costs and Undepreciated Plant Costs by State 9 2.3 Production Costs . 11 2.4 Excess Capacity and t
3、he Electron Bubble 17 2.4.1 Historical Factors of Relevance in Evaluating Reserve Margins . 17 2.4.2 . 22 2.4.3 Dissipation of the Electron Bubble . 24 2.4.4 Actual and Potential Generation . 27 Recent Factors of Relevance in Evaluating Reserve Margins 3.0 NUCLEAR ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY . 49 F
4、actors Affecting the Rate of Nuclear Plant Retirements . 49 3.1.1 The Retirement Decisionmaking Framework 49 3.1 3.1.2 Operating Costs . 52 3.1.3 Capacity Factor . 53 3.1.4 Decommissioning . 53 3.1.5 Market Value 54 3.2 Plant-by-Plant Analysis . 56 3.3 Retirement Scenario . 64 4.0 QUALITATTIE IMPLIC
5、ATIONS FOR NATURAL GAS 67 5.0 REFERENCES 69 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. U.S. Net Summer Capability and Net Generation by Fuel Type Existing Steam-Electric Nameplate Capacity by Age and Cost, 1994 Highest Total Plant Costs and Estima
6、ted Plant Balances (1994), by State/Region, Mixed-year Dollars Steam Plant Production Costs ($/MWh, 1994), excluding Capital Additions Total Production Costs ($/MWh, 1994) for Coal-fired and Nuclear Powerplants, Most Costly StatedRegions NERC Criteria for Assessing the Adequacy of Generating Capacit
7、y Net Change in Utility-Owned and IPP Net Summer Capability (1994-2004) by Region and Fuel Type (MW) Average Annual Nonfuel Operating Costs, 1974-1993, (1993$/kW) Nuclear Plant Performance Statistics By Average Nonfuel O, and Plant Life Extension - Since the 1980s, utilities have increasingly shifte
8、d from new construction to increasing the efficiency and output from existing powerplants. In the case of nuclear powerplants, for example, at least four utilities (Northern States Power, Georgia Power, South Carolina Electric & Gas, and Florida Power & Light) have announced plans to uprate one or m
9、ore nuclear powerplants (BWRs and PWRs). General Electric Co. believes that uprates are technically and economically possible at least 6-10 BWRs. Uprates at several PwRs via improved steam generators are also possible. * State commissions disallowed more than $10 billion in nuclear powerplant invest
10、ments deemed “imprudent.“ Even when investments where prudent in terms of cost, the capacity was often unnecessary due to overestimated load growth. In this latter case, billions of dollars in nuclear powerplant investments were deferred (but not usually disallowed) because the plants were not “used and useful.“ As demand increased and the reserve margins dropped, formerly “unused“ capacity was allowed into the ratebase. Prudence disallowances and “used and useful“ deferrals also affected coal-fired powerplants but only materially adversely affected a few utilities. 20
