THE COST OF NUCLEAR POWER COMPARED WITH ALTERNATIVES TO THE MAGNOX PROGRAMME

Abstract

BETWEEN 1955 and 1972, the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) built eight 'Magnox' nuclear power stations, with a total capacity of 4.8 GW. When the programme was started, it was hoped that they would have lower costs than conventional power stations, but these expectations had been disappointed by the time that the last stations were ordered. Since then, the true relative costs of the Magnox programme have been distorted by comparisons made on the basis of historic capital costs eroded by inflation, and comparisons with modern plants that could not have been an option for investment decisions made in the 1950s. This paper aims to provide a more accurate comparison of the costs of the CEGB's Magnox programme, and of the costs that might have been incurred by a counter-factual programme of conventional plant.1 The actual costs of Magnox programme can be obtained from a variety of historical sources: CEGB accounts and statistical yearbooks, and the reports of Parliamentary Select Committees are the most important. Some of the costs of the counter-factual programme can be obtained in the same way, but the most important component is the change in the CEGB's fuel requirements. A simulation model of the CEGB is used to model the coal and oil burned by the industry's actual stations, and with the addition of the counter-factual replacements for the Magnox stations. The difference in the industry's fuel costs with and without the counter-factual stations is the best estimate of the true cost of replacing the Magnox stations. The CEGB operated on a merit-order basis, and plant-by-plant figures do not reveal the costs of its integrated system.