life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the uk

Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricityoptions for the UKLaurence Stamford and Adisa Azapagicdagger

School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science The University of Manchester Room C16 The Mill Sackville StreetManchester M13 9PL UK

SUMMARY

The UK electricity mix will change significantly in the future This provides an opportunity to consider the full life cyclesustainability of the options currently considered as most suitable for the UK gas nuclear offshore wind and photovoltaics(PV) In an attempt to identify the most sustainable options and inform policy this paper applies a sustainability assessmentframework developed previously by the authors to compare these electricity options To put discussion in context coal isalso considered as a significant contributor to the current electricity supply Each option is assessed and compared in termsof its economic environmental and social implications using a range of sustainability indicators The results show that noone technology is superior and that certain trade-offs must be made For example nuclear and offshore wind power havethe lowest life cycle environmental impacts except for freshwater ecotoxicity for which gas is the best option coal and gasare the cheapest options (pound74 and 66MWh respectively at 10 discount) but both have high global warming potential(1072 and 379 g CO2 eqkWh) PV has relatively low global warming potential (88 g CO2 eqkWh) but high cost(pound302MWh) as well as high ozone layer and resource depletion Nuclear wind and PV increase some aspects of energysecurity in the case of nuclear this is due to inherent fuel storage capabilities (energy density 290 million times that ofnatural gas) whereas wind and PV decrease fossil fuel import requirements by up to 02 toeMWh However all threeoptions require additional installed capacity for grid management Nuclear also poses complex risk and intergenerationalquestions such as the creation of 1016m3TWh of nuclear waste for long-term geological storage Copyright copy 2012 JohnWiley amp Sons Ltd

KEY WORDS

coal electricity gas electricity nuclear electricity wind electricity photovoltaics (PV) sustainability assessment

Correspondence

Adisa Azapagic School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science The University of Manchester Manchester Room C16The Mill Sackville Street M13 9PL UKdaggerE-mail adisaazapagicmanchesteracuk

Received 3 March 2012 Revised 20 August 2012 Accepted 22 August 2012

1 INTRODUCTION

The UK electricity mix is at the beginning of a significantshift away from the technologies that have dominatedproduction for the past few decades (for the current mixsee Figure 1) The European Union (EU) Large CombustionPlant Directive [1] the change from net gas exporter to im-porter [2] the retirement of most of the nuclear fleet by 2023[see 3] and the legally binding Climate Change Act [4] haveall forced the government to consider important questionsabout replacing current capacity In many cases (such as thatof nuclear power) decisions taken today will dictate thefuture of UKrsquos electricity supply for 60 years or longer dueto the long lifetimes of new power plants designs and theirassociated financial and infrastructural commitments

It is clear therefore that the coming years represent anopportunity to modernise and improve UKrsquos electricity

supply taking into account economic environmental andsocial impacts that may be accrued long into the futureThis is the subject of the present paper that applies the sus-tainability indicators framework developed by Stamfordand Azapagic [5] to assess the sustainability of some oftechnologies that are most likely to be deployed in theUK in the near to midterm These are offshore windphotovoltaics (PV) nuclear and gas power In additioncoal generation is also considered as one of the significantcontributors to the current electricity mix that will still havepresence in the future As far as the authors are aware this isthe first assessment of its kind for the UK using a life cycleapproach to assess a broad range of techno-economicenvironmental and social issues associated with these elec-tricity technologies The paper also presents several novelaspects of sustainability assessment including dispatchabil-ity technological lock-in resistance financial incentives

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCHInt J Energy Res (2012)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrarycom) DOI 101002er2962

Copyright copy 2012 John Wiley amp Sons Ltd

worker injuries diversity of fuel supply mixes nuclearproliferation and intergenerational equity

The prospects for these five technologies in the future UKelectricity mix are discussed in brief in the succeeding text

Current policy aims to increase substantially theinstalled capacity of wind power particularly offshoreinstallations In December 2000 The Crown Estate beganawarding sites in UK waters to potential wind farm devel-opers and this process has continued in three lsquoroundsrsquo ofdevelopment each successively larger than the last(although at the time of writing rounds two and threeare yet to be completed) The three rounds total a potentialinstalled capacity of 33GW [7] roughly 25 times thecapacity of operational offshore wind farms in the UK in2011 [calculated from 8] The scale of this expansion isreflected in the emphasis given to offshore wind in theRenewables Obligation [9] that functions as the main stim-ulus for renewable energy technologies in the UK whereasmany renewables such as onshore wind and hydroelectric-ity receive one Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC)per MWh produced offshore wind receives between 15and 2 in order to attract investment by offsetting itsrelatively high costs

Another renewable option favoured in the UK is solarPV Because the introduction of the Feed-in Tariff (FiT)in April 2010 large energy suppliers have been requiredto make payments to owners of small-scale (lt5MW)renewable installations such as PV based on the totalamount of electricity produced as well as exported to thegrid [10] Although PV until recently only supplied a tinypercentage of UK electricity (approximately 0005 in2009 [6]) in its first full year of operation the FiT hadresulted in 28 705 PV installations totalling 78MW [11]this is more than triple the total installed capacity in 2009[calculated from 6] It seems therefore that PV is set tobecome a significant generating technology in the UK

The government is also trying to encourage newnuclear build as exemplified in its recent National Policy

Statement for Nuclear Power Generation [12] ldquogiventhe urgent need to decarbonise our electricity supplyand enhance the UKrsquos energy security and diversity ofsupply the Government believes that new nuclearpower stations need to be developed significantly earlierthan the end of 2025rdquo All indications are that thispolicy will survive the Fukushima incident as also con-firmed by the recent Weightman report on the safetyand security of nuclear plants in the UK [13] Nuclearpower is one of the technologies that will benefit froma carbon floor price to be introduced from 2013 start-ing at around pound16t CO2 [14] Currently up to 19GWof new nuclear capacity has been proposed by variousutilities and consortia [3]

At the present time electricity from natural gas and coalstill dominates the UK electricity mix providing 45 and27 of electricity in 2009 respectively (Figure 1) How-ever unlike coal gas power is still expanding particularlycombined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) Owing primarily totheir low capital costs and the fact that they are a proventechnology CCGTs are likely to remain significant contri-butors to UK energy supply since the beginning of 2009the government has given planning consent to 105GWof new CCGT capacity [15] Moreover there is evidencethat some utilities are abandoning plans to build coal plantsin favour of CCGTs for various reasons [for example 16]as discussed in the succeeding text

UK coal power has declined greatly in the last2ndash3 decades When the UK electricity sector was privatisedin 1990 coal produced 72 of electricity [17] Followingprivatisation and the subsequent lsquodash for gasrsquo thisfigure declined rapidly and in 2009 stood at 27 [6]The contribution of coal will again decline markedlyover the next few years as a result of the EU LargeCombustion Plant Directive a total of 85 GW of coalplants have opted out of the LCPD and are thereforeoperating for limited hours and will permanently shutdown by 1 January 2016 [18] Additionally the new

Figure 1 Current UK electricity mix (based on electricity supply in 2009 [6])

Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UKL Stamford and A Azapagic

Int J Energy Res (2012) copy 2012 John Wiley amp Sons LtdDOI 101002er

Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) limits emissionsof new generators to 450 g CO2kWh at the point ofgeneration [19] effectively banning construction ofcoal plants without carbon capture and storage (CCS)Nevertheless the existing coal plants will still have apresence however small in the future UK electricitygrid Therefore in terms of the analysis in this papercoal power serves as a useful reference technology

The technologies considered are those most suitable forimmediate deployment For this reason CCS whethercoal-powered gas-powered or biomass-powered has notbeen included as it will not become available on a moder-ate to large scale until the 2020s [20] Other technologieshave been rejected at this stage on grounds of technologi-cal diversity and related data issues (in the case ofbiomass) relative lack of expansion opportunities in theUK (hydro) and lower prominence in current UK energypolicy than solar and offshore wind (onshore windgeothermal combined heat and power imports) Assess-ment of these technologies to complement this studywould be beneficial

The following section outlines the methodology used forthe sustainability assessment of offshore wind solar PVnuclear gas and coal power including the assumptionsand data sources The results are presented and discussed inSection 3 the conclusions of the study are drawn inSection 4

2 SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTMETHODOLOGY

21 Life cycle sustainability indicators

The assessment follows the methodological frameworkdeveloped by Stamford and Azapagic [5] that uses a lifecycle approach to assess techno-economic environmentaland social sustainability of different electricity optionsThe framework comprises 43 sustainability indicators thatare summarised in Table I It was developed based ondirect engagement with stakeholders from industry gov-ernment academia and NGOs as well as literature reviewThe latter includes recent developments in sustainabilityassessment of electricity generation in Europe [21ndash24]For a detailed description of the methodology used in thispaper see [5]

Each indicator assesses a particular sustainability issueon a life cycle basis following electricity options fromlsquocradle to graversquo As shown in Figure 2 the life cycleincludes extraction and processing of fuels (if relevant)generation of electricity and waste management Construc-tion and decommissioning of power plants are alsoincluded within the system boundary

As also indicated in Figure 2 variations are possiblewithin the nuclear and gas life cycles depending on thefuel chain In the case of nuclear power in the UK newreactors are expected to operate on a lsquoonce-throughrsquo fuelcycle in which spent fuel is stored for eventual disposal

[25] However both reactor designs (AREVA EPR andWestinghouse AP1000) currently undergoing GenericDesign Assessment (GDA)1 are able to use mixed oxidefuel (MOX)2 produced following the reprocessing of spentfuel [2829] Use of MOX is therefore a possibilitydepending on future policy The potential impacts of thisare examined in Section 3

Gas fuel chain variations also indicated in Figure 2 aredue to increasing use of liquefied natural gas (LNG)LNG is produced by purifying and cooling natural gasThis can then be transported overseas by speciallydesigned tankers before being regasified at its destinationand fed into the gas network The use of LNG avoids theneed for gas pipeline infrastructure and improves supplydiversity but it comes at an increased environmentalimpact as shown in Section 3

22 Data sources and assumptions

The key assumptions and data sources for the differentpower options for each sustainability indicator listed inTable I are given in the following text and in the AppendixA Wherever possible and available a range of values foreach option has been considered to establish the lowerand upper bounds Where appropriate average values areused as a basis for sustainability assessment in Section 3In other cases lsquocentralrsquo estimates are used instead repre-senting the most likely values for present and near-termnew build based on the specific technology type expectedto be deployed For instance life cycle environmentalimpacts of offshore wind power are based on a central casecomprising 3MW turbines with a capacity factor of 30reflecting the fact that a large majority of offshore windfarms under construction or planned closely match thesespecifications The lower and upper bounds attempt toaccount for feasible but less common situations such as2 or 5MW turbines with capacity factors of 30 or 50(see Section 2211 for further details)

Data in this analysis have been gathered from manysources In the calculation of results unless stated other-wise the following technological characteristics have beenassumed

bull Offshore wind 20-year operating life 30 capacityfactor

1Generic Design Assessment is the regulatory procedure bywhich new reactor designs have to be approved by the Healthand Safety Executive for use in the UK pending site-specificlicencing [26] The designs currently undergoing GDA are theAREVA EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) and the Westing-house AP1000 (an evolutionary PWR design)2Mixed oxide comprises 3ndash10 plutonium dioxide (dependingon the proportion of the Pu-239 isotope) with the remaining90ndash97 being depleted uranium dioxide [27] The resulting fuelbehaves in a similar but not identical manner to normal low-enriched uranium dioxide fuel

Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UK L Stamford and A Azapagic


TableI

Sum

maryof

theindicators

used

forasse

ssingthesu

staina

bilityof

elec

tricity

optio

ns[5]

Sus

tainab

ility

issu

eIndicator

Unit

Tech

no-eco

nomic

Ope

rability

1Cap

acity

factor

(pow

erou

tput

asape

rcen

tage

ofthemaxim

umpo

ssible

output)

Perce

ntag

e(

)2

Availabilityfactor

(perce

ntag

eof

timeaplan

tis

availableto

prod

uceelec

tricity

)Perce

ntag

e(

)3

Tech

nicald

ispa

tcha

bility(ra

mp-up

rateram

p-do

wnratem

inim

umup

time

minim

umdo

wntim

e)Sum

med

rank

4Eco

nomic

disp

atch

ability

(ratio

ofcapitalc

ostto

totallev

elised

gene

ratio

nco

st)

Dim

ension

less

5Lifetim

eof

glob

alfuel

rese

rves

atcu

rren

tex

tractio

nrates

Yea

rsTe

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce6

Ratio

ofplan

tflex

ibility

(abilityfortrigen

eration

nega

tiveGWPan

dor

H2prod

uctio

n)an

dop

erationa

llife

time

Yea

rs1

Immed

iacy

7Timeto

plan

tstart-u

pfrom

startof

cons

truc

tion

Yea

rsLe

velised

cost

ofge

neratio

n8

Cap

italc

osts

Pen

cekWh

9Ope

ratio

nan

dmainten

ance

costs

Pen

cekWh

10F

uelc

osts

Pen

cekWh

11T

otal

leve

lised

cost

Pen

cekWh

Cos

tvaria

bility

12F

uelp

ricese

nsitivity

(ratio

offuel

cost

tototallev

elised

gene

ratio

nco

st)

Dim

ension

less

Fina

ncialinc

entiv

es13

Finan

cial

ince

ntives

andassistan

ce(egR

OCs

taxp

ayer

burden

s)Pen

cekWh

Env

ironm

ental

Materialrec

yclability

14R

ecyclabilityof

inpu

tmaterials

Perce

ntag

e(

)Globa

lwarming

15G

loba

lwarmingpo

tential(GHG

emission

s)kg

CO

2eq

kWh

Ozone

laye

rde

pletion

16O

zone

depletionpo

tential(CFC

andha

loge

natedHCem

ission

s)kg

CFC

-11eq

kWh

Acidificatio

n17

Acidificatio

npo

tential(SO

2N

OxHCla

ndNH3em

ission

s)kg

SO

2eq

kWh

Eutroph

ication

18E

utroph

icationpo

tential(NN

OxNH4+P

O43etc)

kgPO

43eq

kWh

Pho

toch

emical

smog

19P

hotoch

emical

oxidan

tcrea

tionpo

tential(VOCsan

dNO

x)kg

C2H4eq

kWh

Water

ecotox

icity

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

potential

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

21M

arineec

otox

icity

potential

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

Land

usean

dqu

ality

22T

errestria

leco

toxicity

potential

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

23L

andoc

cupa

tion(areaoc

cupied

over

time)

m2yrkWh

24G

reen

fieldland

use(propo

rtionof

new

deve

lopm

enton

prev

ious

lyun

deve

lope

dland

relativ

eto

total

land

occu

pied

)Perce

ntag

e(

)

Soc

ial

Provision

ofem

ploy

men

t25

Dire

ctem

ploy

men

tPerso

n-ye

arsGWh

26T

otal

employ

men

t(dire

ct+indirect)

Perso

n-ye

arsGWh

Hum

anhe

alth

impa

cts

27W

orke

rinjurie

sNo

ofinjurie

sGWh

28H

uman

toxicity

potential(ex

clud

ingradiation)

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

29W

orke

rhu

man

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation

DALY

bGWh

30T

otal

human

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(w

orke

rsan

dpo

pulatio

n)DALY

bGWh

Largeaccide

ntris

k31

Fatalities

dueto

largeaccide

nts

No

offatalitiesGWh

Localc

ommun

ityim

pacts

32P

ropo

rtionof

staffhiredfrom

localc

ommun

ityrelativ

eto

totald

irect

employ

men

tPerce

ntag

e(

)33

Spe

ndingon

locals

uppliers

relativ

eto

totala

nnua

lspe

nding

Perce

ntag

e(

)34

Dire

ctinve

stmen

tin

localc

ommun

ityas

prop

ortio

nof

totala

nnua

lprofits

Perce

ntag

e(

)

(Con

tinue

s)



bull Solar PV 35-year operating life 86 capacityfactor

bull Nuclear 60-year operating life 85 capacity factor50-GWdtU burnup

bull Natural gas 25-year operating life 63 capacityfactor and

bull Coal 45-year operating life 62 capacity factor

The origins of these capacity factors are discussed alongwith the other techno-economic data and assumptions

221 Techno-economic data and assumptionsAs shown in Table I the indicators used for the techno-

economic assessment are the following

bull Operability (capacity and availability factors technicaland economic dispatchability lifetime of global fuelreserves)

bull Technological lock-inbull Immediacybull Levelised cost of generation (capital operationmain-tenance and fuel costs)

bull Cost variability andbull Financial incentives

2211 OperabilityCapacity factors for coal and gas the capacity factors

used for the assessment are based on a 5-year average fig-ures for the UK from 2005 to 2009 [6] the lower andhigher values reported over this period have also beenconsidered

For wind and nuclear a different approach has beentaken because average figures do not reflect the likely per-formance of new power plants for the following reasons

bull The height and capacities of installed wind turbinesare increasing quickly As height increases so doeswind speed [30] thus newer larger-capacity wind tur-bines provide higher capacity factors than the currentfleet average

bull New nuclear reactors in the UK will be pressurisedwater reactors (PWRs) whereas the current fleet isdominated by older advanced gas-cooled reactors TheUKrsquos only current PWR Sizewell B has a significantlyhigher average capacity factor than the UK fleet average(839 lifetime average [31] versus 632 5-yearaverage [6]) New reactors being PWRs are expectedto behave similarly to Sizewell B

As a result industry standard figures of 30 for off-shore wind and 85 for nuclear are taken as central esti-mates The lower bounds for both technologies are theworst figures reported for the UK from 2005 to 2009 [6]whereas the higher bounds are the achievable valuesexpected for new build

Photovoltaic capacity factors have been derived fromthe performance range observed in a large UK study [32]

TableI

(Con

tinue

d)

Sus

tainab

ility

issu

eIndicator

Unit

Hum

anrig

htsan

dco

rrup

tion

35Inv

olve

men

tof

coun

triesin

thelifecyclewith

know

nco

rrup

tionprob

lems(based

onTran

sparen

cyInternationa

lCorruptionPerce

ptions

Inde

x)Sco

re(0ndash10

)

Ene

rgyse

curity

36A

mou

ntof

impo

rted

fossilfuel

potentially

avoide

dtoekW

h37

Diversity

offuel

supp

lymix

Sco

re(0ndash1)

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(ene

rgyde

nsity

)GJm

3

Nuc

lear

prolife

ratio

n39

Use

ofno

n-en

riche

duran

ium

inareactorcapa

bleof

onlinerefuelling

useof

reproc

essing

req

uiremen

tforen

riche

duran

ium

Sco

re(0ndash3)

Intergen

erationa

lequ

ity40

Use

ofab

iotic

reso

urce

s(elemen

ts)

kgSbeq

kWh

41U

seof

abiotic

reso

urce

s(fo

ssilfuels)

MJkW

h42

Volum

eof

radioa

ctivewaste

tobe

stored

m3kWh

43V

olum

eof

liquidCO

2to

bestored

m3kWh

a 14-dichlorobenzene

bdisability-adjusted

lifeyears



Availability factors these figures are based on variousoperational data obtained from the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA) [31] Scottish and Southern [33]North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)[34] RenewableUK [35] International Energy Agency(IEA) [36] and Department for Business Enterprise andRegulatory Reform (BERR) [37ndash46]

Technical and economic dispatchability dispatchabilityis the ability of a generating unit to increase or decrease gen-eration or to be brought on line or shut down as needed [5]Technical dispatchability comprises four criteria ramp-upand ramp-down rates as well as minimum up and down times(Table I) The overall technical dispatchability score for eachtechnology is obtained by summing up its rank in each of thefour criteria Because wind and PV are not considereddispatchable as their output cannot be increased at will theyassume the worst rank for each criterion

The data for technical dispatchability of the coal gas andnuclear options have been obtained by observing operator-specified information [47] over a period of several monthsthey are summarised in Table II It should be noted thatthese figures may reflect the way in which operators chooseto run their plants rather than the plantsrsquo technical abilities

The data for economic dispatchability estimated as aratio of capital and total levelised costs are based on thecost estimates described further below

Lifetime of fuel reserves central estimates for thelifetime of fuel reserves reflect economically recoverableresources as specified by NEA [48] and BP [49] Lowerestimates are calculated from the lifetime of currenteconomically recoverable reserves and predicted demandincreases the latter of which are specified by WNA [50]

Table II Summary of technical dispatchability data retrievedfrom balancing mechanism reporting system [47]

CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Ramp-up rate(min)

Worst 065 085 017Average 225 163 017Best 413 254 375

Ramp-down rate(min)


Minimum downtime (min)


Minimum uptime (min)


CCGT combined cycle gas turbine PWR pressurised waterreactor

Nuclear (pressurised water reactor)

Coal

Gas

Fuel fabrication

OperationWaste Storage

Waste Disposal

Construction

Decommissioning

MOX fabrication

ReprocessingDeconversion ampstorage

Cleaning amppreparation

OperationWaste

Disposal

Construction

Decommissioning

Mining

Extraction Treatment amppreparation

Operation

Construction

Decommissioning

LNG

Liquefaction

Regasification

Manufacture Construction Operation Decommissioning

Mining ampmilling

Conversion ampenrichment

Raw materials

WindPV

Figure 2 The life cycles of electricity from coal gas nuclear wind and photovoltaics [----- optional stages depending on the chosenfuel chain MOX - mixed oxide fuel LNG - liquefied natural gas]



and EIA [51] Upper estimates reflect the total availableresource [52] For nuclear this includes uranium fromphosphates [53] and for gas lsquounconventionalrsquo resources(shale gas coal-bed methane and lsquotightrsquo gas) [54]

2212 Technological lock-in resistanceRatio of plant flexibility and operational lifetime flexi-

bility reflects the ability of each technology for trigenera-tion net negative CO2 emissions and high temperature(800 C) H2 production Ten points are accrued for each ofthe three criteria with the sum being squared and dividedby operational lifetime as shown in Table III

2213 ImmediacyTime to plant start-up this indicator has been estimated

based on figures reported by vendors and utilities includingthose incorporated into the cost estimates mentioned in thefollowing text As this indicator measures time taken to startup the plant from the start of construction the figures do notinclude planning and preliminary studies

2214 Levelised cost of generationCapital operational fuel and total levelised costs cost

estimates for nuclear coal offshore wind and gas are basedon those by Mott MacDonald [55] at 10 discount rateBecause Mott MacDonald does not examine solar PVthe solar cost estimate is based on IEA data (average ofOECD country estimates) [56] Cost estimates here there-fore inherit most of the assumptions made by the primaryauthors such as plant lifespan and average capacity factorHowever these assumptions are broadly in line with thoseused in the rest of the assessment in this paper The excep-tion to this is capacity factor which is universally assumedto be slightly higher than our estimates discussed earlier(see lsquooperabilityrsquo) Nevertheless because the capacityfactors are higher for all options their relative performanceis consistent so the ranking of results is robust Any subsi-dies are excluded from these costs including the carbon

price applied by the original authors and the RenewablesObligation Order [9] subsidies are considered separately(lsquofinancial incentivesrsquo)

The cost data are summarised in the Appendix A Thevalues used in this study have been verified against earlierUK cost estimates [5758] as well as data for other OECDcountries published by IEA [5659] and MIT [60] Thesedata are not included here as they have been found to agreebroadly on the relative costs of each electricity option butnot on the absolute costs The reasons for this are twofoldfirstly the costs of electricity generation from all technolo-gies have increased greatly in the last few years [55] mak-ing older studies obsolete and secondly costs (particularlycapital) tend to be much lower in some OECD countriessuch as South Korea than in the UK which drags downthe averages derived from studies of OECD countries Be-cause the solar PV estimate is based on OECD estimates itis likely that the cost of solar has been underestimated here

2215 Cost variabilityFuel price sensitivity this indicator has been estimated

using the fuel cost data and total levelised generation costsdiscussed in the previous section

2216 Financial incentivesFinancial incentives and assistance this represents a

lsquosnapshotrsquo of the direct and indirect subsidies that couldpotentially be gained by owners of each electricity technol-ogy at the time of writing The indicator includes the rev-enues that are available from the Renewables Obligation(using the 20112012 price set by Ofgem [9]) and the FiT(using 2011 bandings and assuming a 5050 split betweennew and retrofitted domestic installations [10]) It shouldbe noted that the FiT bandings are under review at the timeof writing and the potential consequences of this are dis-cussed in Section 316 Also included is an estimation ofthe carbon tax avoided by lsquozero-carbonrsquo (at the point ofgeneration) technologies This assumes that the lsquozero-car-bonrsquo optionsmdashnuclear and windmdashreplace the equivalentcapacity of gas CCGT emitting 400 g CO2kWh Theavoided carbon tax is not included for domestic PV asbuilding a CCGT would not be a valid proposition for ahome owner The resulting saving is calculated on the ba-sis of the average carbon price in 20102011 of pound1269tCO2 [61] No attempt is made to account for futurechanges in incentives The derivation and breakdown ofthe results are shown in Table IV

222 Environmental data and assumptionsAs shown in Table I the following environmental

issues and related indicators are considered

bull Material recyclabilitybull Global warmingbull Ozone layer depletionbull Acidificationbull Eutrophication

Table III Data used for technological lock-in resistance

CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Wind(offshore)

Solar(PV)

Tri-generation Yes Yes Yes No NoNet negative CO2

emissionsNo No No No No

Thermochemical H2

productionYes Yes No No No

Flexibility indexf (0ndash30)

20 20 10 0 0

Lifetime l (years) 45 25 60 20 25Technologicallock-in scoref2l (years1)

889 16 167 0 0

CCGT combined cycle gas turbine PWR pressurised water reac-tor PV photovoltaicsItalics are intended to denote the interim stages of calculation



bull Photochemical smogbull Water ecotoxicity (freshwater and marine) andbull Land use and quality (terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP)land occupation and greenfield land use)

All environmental indicators except for material recycl-ability and greenfield land use have been estimated usinglife cycle assessment (LCA) and the CML 2001 impact as-sessment methodology (November 2009 update) [6263]The key assumptions are summarised in the following textThe CML method has been chosen because it is one of themost widely used life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)methods Additionally the impacts are based on eitherglobal or European data unlike for instance TRACI [64]which is mainly US-based It is also a lsquomidpointrsquo LCIAmethod and therefore carries much less uncertainty thanlsquoendpointrsquo alternatives such as Eco-indicator 99 [65] andthe endpoint components of the ReCiPe methodology[66] Finally it is much more transparent as the impact cat-egories are disaggregated unlike for example in Eco-indicator

2221 Material recyclability Recyclability of inputmaterials material recyclability is the percentage ofmaterialsused for construction of a power plant that can potentially berecycled For most construction materials the potentialrecyclability is 100 The exceptions to this are rock woolwhich is assumed to be 97 recyclable [67] and concretewhich is calculated to be 794 recyclable [68] Recyclabil-ity is calculated for each technology using the amounts ofconstruction materials given in ecoinvent [68] as illustratedin Table V for gas CCGT (space limitation precludesshowing the breakdown for other technologies)

The overall recyclability of nuclear plants is modified toreflect the fact that a percentage of materials will have beentoo irradiated to be recycled This percentage is thought to

be as low as 144 based on a Swiss study from 1985 [69]reflecting the fact that only a small volume of the totalplant becomes contaminated assuming normal operationCorroborating data are lacking in this area however arecent study of the AREVA EPR broadly agrees showingthat around 14 000 t of intermediate-level waste (ILW)low-level waste (LLW) and very low-level waste (VLLW)will arise from decommissioning whereas the plant has atotal mass approximating 400 000 t [70] This would sug-gest that an estimate of lt5 contamination is reasonable

2222 Other environmental issues Environmen-tal (LCA) impacts all environmental impacts have beencalculated using LCA as a tool GaBi v44 LCA software[71] and the Ecoinvent v22 database [68] have been usedfor these purposes The LCA models and data have been

Table IV Financial incentives for different electricity options

Coal (pulverised) Gas (CCGT) Nuclear (PWR) Winda (offshore) Solar (PV)b

Number of ROCs received per MWh nac na na 200 0Value per ROC in 201112 (pound) na na na 3869 0Total ROC incentive (poundMWh) 7738 0Value of FiT for lt4 kWp in 201112New build (poundMWh) na na na 0 37800Retrofit (poundMWh) na na na 0 43300Total average FiT incentive (poundMWh) 40550Avoided emissions relative to CCGT (t CO2MWh) 0 0 04 04 nad

Total avoided carbon pricee (poundMWh) 0 0 508 508 0TOTAL (poundMWh) 0 0 508 8246 40550

CCGT combined cycle gas turbine PWR pressurised water reactor PV photovoltaicsaWind energy does not benefit from FiT due to the large sizebPV benefit from FiT onlycna not applicabledReplacing large-scale CCGT by a small-scale PV is not considered feasible hence the avoided carbon price is not consideredeAverage carbon price from April 2010 to March 2011 pound1269t CO2Italics are intended to denote the interim stages of calculation

Table V An example of the amount of materials used for plantconstruction and their end-of-life recyclability for a 400MW

combined cycle gas turbine [68]

Material Amount (t) Recyclability ()

Reinforcing steel 8800 100Low density polyethylene 1300 100Copper 440 100Chromium 0976 100Chromium steel 188 1800 100Aluminium 440 100Nickel 63 100Cobalt 0720 100Concrete 14 280 794Ceramic tiles 42 100Rock wool 660 97Total materials 27 732Total recyclability of the plant 89 (24 771 t)



developed anew or adapted from Ecoinvent to match UKconditions as follows

bull The current UK electricity mix is used for all relevantlife cycle stages carried out it the UK

bull Fuel mixes reflect current UK conditions includingthe use of LNG

bull Photovoltaic energy outputs are adjusted to UK inso-lation according to data from IEA-PVPS [72] andMunzinger et al [32] An average world mix of PVtechnologies has been assumed [73] comprising385 of mono-crystalline silicon panels and lami-nates 523 of multi-crystalline Si panels and lami-nates 47 of amorphous Si panels and laminates29 of ribbon Si panels and laminates and 16 ofCdTe and CIGS (cadmium-indium-gallium-selenide)panels

bull The nuclear fuel cycle assumes burn-up of 53GWdtUto approximate likely new-build burn-up rates [28] Itis assumed that no MOX is used and that all spent fuelis sent to conditioning for disposal rather than reproces-sing in line with current UK policy [25] and

bull Offshore wind is based on 3MW turbines [74]

Sensitivity analyses have been carried out to estimatethe lower and upper bounds for the environmental impactsAs part of this analysis each option has been remodelled toexplore the effect of end-of-life recycling of all major com-ponents using current UK demolition recycling rates [75]Additionally variations in the most influential factors foreach technology have been explored as follows

bull Coal power station efficiencies have been variedfrom 26 to 42 SO2 capture by desulphurisationfrom 24 to 90 and NOx removal by selectivecatalytic reduction from 0 to 79 These rangesreflect operating coal plants in the UK GermanyNORDEL (the former association of transmission

system operators in Denmark Finland IcelandNorway and Sweden) and various USA regions [76]

bull Gas the proportion of LNG has been varied from 0to 100

bull Nuclear the proportion of MOX fuel used has beenvaried from 0 to 8 The differences betweenenriching uranium via centrifuge and diffusion havealso been assessed with the proportion using centri-fuge varying from 70 to 100

bull Offshore wind foundations have been assumed to beeither steel monopile or concrete In addition to3MW turbine capacities of 2 and 5MW have beenassessed with capacity factors of 30 and 50reflecting the average performance of offshore windtoday and its potential performance in the futurerespectively The 2MW turbine models are fromEcoinvent [68] and 3 and 5MW models are fromthe SPRIng database [74]

bull PV each technology type has been assessed for aslanted roof installation In addition mono-crystallineand multi-crystalline Si panels and laminates havebeen modelled for installation on a building faccediladethe former two have also been modelled for a flat roofmounting

Greenfield land use this indicator is based on visualinspection of the land plots of accepted and proposednew build projects by large UK utilities and energy devel-opersmdashincluding RWE npower Scottish Power EOn2CO Energy Peel Energy and Vattenfallmdashas well as allthe sites approved by the government for new nuclear build[77] Table VI shows the proposed power plant sites forwhich data are available as well as the assumptions used

223 Social data and assumptionsThe social issues comprise (Table I) the following

bull Provision of employment (direct and indirect)

Table VI Proposed power plant data used in estimating greenfield land use [77]

Technology Siteproposal Proposed capacity (MW) Land status

Coal (pulverised) New plants without CCS not permitted na naGas (CCGT) Drakelow D 1320 Brownfield

Drakelow E 1320 BrownfieldTilbury C 2000 BrownfieldWillington C 2000 Brownfield

Nuclear (PWR) Bradwell 1650 GreenfieldHartlepool Grid connection not yet agreed BrownfieldHeysham 1650 GreenfieldHinkley Point 3340 GreenfieldOldbury Connection agreed capacity tba GreenfieldSellafield 3200 GreenfieldSizewell 3300 GreenfieldWylfa 3600 Greenfield

Wind (offshore) Land use negligibleSolar (PV) No land use (rooftop installation)

CCGT combined cycle gas turbine PWR pressurised water reactor PV photovoltaics



bull Human health impacts (worker injuries human toxic-ity worker health impacts from radiation and healthimpacts from radiation on workers and population)

bull Large accident riskbull Local community impacts (staff from local communitylocal suppliers and investment in local community)

bull Human rights and corruptionbull Energy security (avoidance of fossil fuel imports fuelsupply diversity and fuel storage capability)

bull Nuclear proliferation andbull Intergenerational equity (abiotic resources storage ofradioactive waste and storage of captured CO2)

2231 Provision of employment Direct and total(including indirect) employment employment related tothe extraction of ores and aggregates (for manufacture ofconcrete steel and other metals) has been calculated foreach option based on material requirements specified inEcoinvent [68] and employment data from BHP Billiton[78] and the Mineral Products Association [79] The pro-cessing of raw materials into metals is based on labour datafrom Corus [80] Construction figures have been derivedfrom estimates for new build projects produced by utilitycompanies except in the case of nuclear power which isbased on a study by Cogent SSC [81] The operationalstage figures are again derived from utility company dataand for nuclear power the same Cogent SSC studyEmployment derived from the manufacture of replacementcomponents during operation of technologies is notincluded However to meet this criterion employmentfor the operational stage of solar PV had to be estimatedby multiplying an aggregated indirect employment figureof 033 jobs per MWp installed capacity by 025 [8283]This is because the only data available implicitly includedjobs provided by manufacturing replacement componentsBecause of a lack of available estimates in the literatureemployment during decommissioning is assumed to be20 of construction employment except in the case ofPV for which decommissioning is allocated to roofreplacement and therefore assumed to be zero

With regard to indirect employment the life cycleapproach means that work normally classed as indirect(such as that due to the fuel cycle) is already includedDuring the operational stage maintenance employment isincluded but only for inspection and installation of replace-ment parts employment owing to the manufacture of partsis excluded

For the non-renewable options fuel cycle employmentwas calculated using data from Areva [84] Oil and GasUK [85] and the UK Coal Authority [86] As most coal usedin the UK is imported the latter figures were also verifiedagainst South African data [87] Note that althoughSouth Africa only supplies about 10 of UK steam coalimports [6] data are not available for themain supplier Russia

2232 Human health impacts Worker injuriesthe worker injury results are directly linked to the

employment results in that the number of person-years ofemployment for each life cycle stage is used to calculatethe number of expected injuries using Health and SafetyExecutive data [88] appropriate for the respective type oflabour For instance construction stages are based onaverage injury rates for the whole UK construction sectorInjuries included in the estimate are fatalities majorinjuries and less serious injuries that cause an absence fromwork of more than three days For stages of the life cycleoccurring outside the UK the same UK injury rates areused for reasons of consistency It is acknowledged thatrates may differ in other countries but different nationalmethods of injury rate estimation mean that figures fromdifferent countries are rarely comparable

Human toxicity potential (HTP) and total human healthimpacts from radiation these two impacts are estimated aspart of LCA (Section 22122)

Worker human health impacts from radiation this indi-cator measures worker exposure to radiation but is onlyrecorded by the nuclear industry so that comparisonbetween the different electricity options is not possibleTherefore this indicator is not considered here

2233 Large accident risk Fatalities due to largeaccidents large accident fatalities are based on data fromthe Paul Scherrer Institut [89] drawing on previous workusing their historical Energy-Related Severe Accident Data-base and in the case of nuclear power probabilistic safetyassessment [9091] These results represent present-dayestimates under Swiss conditions but have been assumedhere to be suitable as an approximation of UK conditions

2234 Local community impacts and humanrights and corruption These impacts have not beenconsidered as they are company-specific and thereforecannot be assessed at the technology level

2235 Energy security Avoidance of fossil fuelimports and fuel supply diversity the amount of importedfossil fuel potentially avoided is calculated from the averageefficiency of the current UK fossil fuel fleet [calculatedfrom 6] on the basis that a unit of electricity generated bynon-fossil capacity displaces a unit generated by fossilcapacity This is described further in Stamford and Azapagic[5] as is the methodology of the diversity of fuel supply indi-cator which has been calculated using 2009 UK data [6]For uranium supply UK import data have not been availableso EU data have been used instead [92] However becauseuranium is generally imported to the UK as fuel assembliesmanufactured in Europe this is arguably equivalent

Fuel storage capabilities fuel storage capabilities are forcoal and gas based on a 5-year average net calorific valuedata for fuel imported to the UK [6] When quantifying fuelstorage for nuclear power it is more relevant to consider fuelassemblies than uranium itself therefore this indicator hasbeen quantified using fuel assembly data from AREVA[28] on the basis of 50-GWdtU burn-up



2236 Nuclear proliferation The use of non-enriched uranium reprocessing and requirement forenriched uranium neither the AREVA EPR nor theWestinghouse AP1000 is capable of refuelling whilstonline although they do both require enriched fuelRegarding reprocessing it is assumed that any new nuclearplants built in the UK will operate on a once-through cycle(ie reprocessing will not occur) as this is current policy[25] Thus nuclear power deployable in the near futurescores one out of three on the nuclear proliferation scale(for further description see Stamford and Azapagic [5])

2237 Intergenerational equity Abiotic resources(elements and fuels) these indicators have been estimatedas part of LCA (Section 22122)

Volume of radioactive waste and liquid CO2 for stor-age volume of radioactive waste to be stored is calculatedon the basis of lifetime waste production data [9394]assuming the standard 85 capacity factor discussed inSection 221 The results refer to the packaged volumeof ILW and spent fuel The indicator related to storage ofliquid CO2 is not applicable in this analysis as CCStechnologies are not considered

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the assessment results comparing thefive options on different sustainability aspects The sum-mary results are shown in Figures 3ndash5 full results for eachoption and the indicators can be found in Appendix A

However it should be noted that this study considersthe electricity options in isolation In reality it is likelythat there will be complex interactions and relatedconsequences that cannot be captured here For instance

increased penetration of wind or PV (ie the least dispatch-able technologies) has implications for the UK grid asa whole increased system reserve may be needed tomitigate variability in output and risk of sudden largecapacity loss dispatchable generators such as coal andgas plants may need to follow load more fully which willhave maintenance and efficiency consequences demand-side management may be needed to match supply todemand better The implications of these impacts arehighly uncertain and depend on the composition of the gridas a whole and cannot be assessed at the technology levelThey have however been discussed where appropriatethroughout this section

31 Techno-economic sustainability

311 OperabilityCapacity and availability factors higher availability po-

tentially allows higher capacity factors effectively reducingthe cost (as well as social and environmental impacts) by pro-ducing more energy from the same resources However theimplications differ for each option For instance as shown inFigure 3 the central availability factors for all technologiesconsidered range from 81 (wind) to 96 (PV) meaningthat each option is able to supply electricity at least 81 ofthe time Yet only nuclear power actually does as its capac-ity factor is 85 whereas that of PV is only 86 For coaland gas the capacity factor is largely a case of operatorrsquos dis-cretion as the power stations are used to an extent to followload thereby maximising profit and satisfying the demandsof the grid In contrast nuclear plants run continuouslybecause of the low marginal cost of operation As a resultimproving reliability (and thus availability) is likely to havemore influence on the capacity factors of nuclear plants thanfossil plants the annual output of nuclear plants is currently

Figure 3 Techno-economic sustainability of electricity technologies



limited by availabilitymdashif it was possible to produce electric-ity all the time the operator would choose to do somdashwhereasthe annual output of fossil plants is limited by the cost of fueland the price of electricity sold to the grid

In contrast to both of these cases the capacity factors ofrenewables are dictated largely by environmental conditions(incident wind and sunlight) In the case of solar power withits already high availability of 96 capacity factors can onlybe increased by better installation and choice of site Indeedmore than 60 of UK installations are thought to be affectedby problems such as partial shading in severe cases thisreduces output by several tens of percent [32]

Wind power for the time being appears to be underper-forming on the actual availability relative to that suggestedby its proponents For example the analysis of ScrobySands Kentish Flats Barrow and North Hoyle wind farmscarried out in this study shows an average availability of814 compared with 98 claimed by RenewableUK[35] However this may improve as knowledge and exper-tise are gained in maintaining this relatively new technol-ogy The current capacity factors of around 30 for windfarms will also increase as turbines grow in size exploitingthe higher wind speeds at increased altitude [30]

Technical and economic dispatchability the dispatch-ability of generators has been the subject of increasedscrutiny in recent years as the prospect of wider adoptionof intermittent renewables has raised grid managementconcerns Because offshore wind and PV are not dispatch-able (Section 2211) as shown in Figure 3 they are theworst options with respect to both technical and economicdispatchabilities Coal and gas on the other hand arehighly dispatchable and are therefore the preferred optionsfor these two indicators

However recent studies suggest that although the costsand complexity of balancing the grid (matching supply todemand) will increase proportionately with wind penetra-tion this increase is modest enough to allow wind powerto expand to several times its current capacity without sig-nificant problems [see for instance 9596] National Gridfor example estimates that an increase in wind capacity bya factor of 5 (from 58 to 306GW) would necessitate onlya 70 increase in average operating reserve capacity3 [96]

In the case of nuclear power although not as dispatch-able as coal or gas this is mainly an economic issue ratherthan a technical one resulting from high capital costs andvery low marginal cost In the future if the grid changesin such a way that nuclear generators are able to attaingreater revenue from electricity sold at times of highdemand it is conceivable that partial load-following wouldbecome economically viable The technical ability toachieve this has been demonstrated elsewhere in Europeparticularly France

Lifetime of global fuel reserves the lifetime of globalfuel reserves is an important strategic indicator of energysecurity as short lifetimes suggest that supply may failto match demand in the near to medium term causingprice andor political volatility and potentially disrupting

3Operating reserve requirement describes the unused capacityneeded on the grid to balance out predicted short-term changesin demand or supply Plants providing this spare capacity are re-quired to generate the full amount at 4-hour notice The reserverequirement in 201112 was 478GW National grid estimatethis will increase to 813GW in 20252026 when wind capacityis expected to reach 306GW [96]

Figure 4 Environmental sustainability of electricity technologies



service provision However estimating a reserve lifetimemeaningfully is difficult because of uncertainties overfuture discoveries and demand trends The central esti-mate given in Figure 3 is the current ratio of economicallyrecoverable reserves to annual production Using thismeasure and excluding renewables (for which suppliesare effectively infinite) values range from 63 years fornatural gas to 80 years for nuclear to 119 years for coalHowever the incentive to increase exploration comesfrom increased fuel demand and the resulting increase inprices therefore it is likely that new reserves or sourceswill be discovered or that uneconomic reserves willbecome economic Arguably uranium has the greatestlikelihood of extending its reserve lifetime due to the rela-tively low level of exploration in recent decades and theincreasing possibility of extraction from alternativesources such as phosphates and at higher prices sea waterAdditionally fast breeder reactors provide the possibilityof effectively increasing reserve lifetimes to around34 000 years [53]

312 Technological lock-in resistanceRatio of plant flexibility and operational lifetime this

indicator is an estimate of how well each option caters forpotential changes in the way that energy is used nationallyaccounting for whether it could be modified to tri-generateelectricity heating and cooling to have negative globalwarming potential (GWP) (eg integrated biomass andCCS) or to produce high-temperature hydrogen As shownin Figure 3 gas power is preferred from this perspectivedue to the relatively short lifespan of CCGTs together withtheir high temperatures which makes combined heat andpower possible as well as thermo-chemical hydrogen

production In this instance wind power is the worst option(Figure 3) because despite its relatively short lifespan (20ndash25 years) it cannot provide anything other than electricity

313 ImmediacyTime to start up a shorter construction period is prefera-

ble from the industrial perspective because it minimisesuncertainty and pay-back period In this respect domesticPV installations are at first glance preferable with installa-tion taking only 2ndash3 days (Figure 3) However this partlyreflects their small size in comparison with the other technol-ogies (circa 3 kW compared with gt100MW for the otheroptions) A more direct comparison may be found in largerPV installations such as the 70MW Rovigo plant that wascompleted in 9months [97] However this still comparesfavourably to other options the comparably sized 90MWBarrow and Burbo Bank wind farms were built in 11 and15months respectively [98] These periods compare toaround 375months for gas 56months for coal and68months for nuclear (Figure 3) However first-of-a-kindnuclear (and coal CCS) plants will take longer than thisFor instance the first EPR in Finland Olkiluoto 3 is nowexpected to take over 90months [99]

314 Levelised cost of generationCapital operational fuel and total costs the costs

shown in Figure 3 represent the market cost of electricitygeneration excluding incentives provided by marketmechanisms which are discussed in Section 316 Theyare not therefore the net costs paid by owners Overallthe gas option has the lowest average total annualised costs(65 pencekWh) and PV by far the highest (302 pkWh)despite the fact that PV costs are likely underestimated

Figure 5 Social sustainability of electricity technologies



(Section 221) The contribution of different costs to thetotal differs greatly between the options For example80 of the cost of nuclear power is due to the capital costwhereas fuel contributes less than 10 to the total Theconverse is true for gas where 75 of the cost is due tothe fuel and less than 20 due to the cost of the powerplant [56]

The levelised costs are estimated using a set discountrate the level of which may affect the ranking of theoptions according to differences in the relative magnitudeof cost components There is much argument over dis-counting and its role in sustainability [see for example100] the main premise of which is that high discount ratesgrossly diminish liabilities that occur far into the future(such as nuclear plant decommissioning) and that this iseffectively a theft from future generations There is a largebody of literature in this area review of which is beyondthe scope of this paper However contrary to popular as-sertion nuclear power is in fact penalised by high discountrates as a result of its large initial capital componentalthough discounting disguises costs in the future it effec-tively magnifies costs in the present meaning all technolo-gies with a large capital component (nuclear wind and PV)appear more expensive at higher discount rates As anillustration raising the discount rate from 5 to 10increases the cost of nuclear power by more than 60whereas the corresponding increase for gas power is lessthan 10 [calculated from 56]

The results in Figure 3 show that offshore wind and PVare currently far from grid parity whereas coal gas andnuclear are broadly comparable except from the distribu-tion of their cost components As discussed the fact thatnuclear wind and PV are highly capital-intensive makesthem more susceptible to discount rate choice with lowerdiscount rates favouring them This capital componentdoes however pose a problem in an uncertain market asit exposes owners to greater losses if plant lifetime is cutshort for any reason This is the case for example withGerman nuclear power plants that will be decommissionedearlier due to a legislative u-turn following the Fukushimaincident Another example of the importance of the capitalcost is the 16GW nuclear reactor under construction byEDF at Flamanville France which is expected to costeuro5 bn (pound44bn) [101] In contrast the larger 2GW gasCCGT currently under construction by RWE npower atWillington UK has an estimated capital investment ofpound1bn [102] To account for this differing level of risk it islikely that a potential investor in nuclear wind or PV tech-nologies would assess these options at higher discount ratesthan for example gas power increasing their apparent costThis would be an attempt to illustrate the higher riskpremium and correspondingly higher return on investmentrequired to make nuclear wind or PV profitable

315 Cost variabilityFuel price sensitivity fuel prices are generally volatile

particularly over periods as long as the lifetime of a powerplant As such they are the major component of future cost

uncertainty This is a significant problem for fossil fuelpower stations particularly as fuel reserves decrease anddemand increases greatly due to developing countries suchas China and India Fuel constitutes 75 of the total leve-lised costs for gas plants [56] exposing owners to highlyuncertain operating costs in the future Coal plants are alsovulnerable to fuel price increases as fuel costs contributearound 30 to the total levelised costs The polar oppositeof these cases is fuel-free renewable energy for which themain source of future cost uncertainty is maintenance Fornuclear power fuel constitutes under 10 of the total cost[56] and less than half of this is the price of the uraniumitself [103] This provides a buffer to both increasingextraction costs and increasing processing costs enablingpower plant owners to tolerate a very large increase inthe price of either

316 Financial incentivesFinancial incentives and assistance two types of incen-

tives can be distinguished regulatory tools used by thegovernment to drive the market in a particular directionand hidden subsidies that are not used as market toolsThe former have been included here (Figure 3) namelythe FiT and ROCs which show the incentives availableto power technology owners Additionally as an avoidedcost for non-fossil technologies the carbon price is in-cluded From this it is clear that PV is currently benefittingfrom far higher incentives than any other option as the gov-ernment attempts to make PV financially viable via regula-tion It is interesting to note that incentives for PV (406 pkWh) exceed expected costs (302 pkWh) making PV un-der current conditions profitable without selling any elec-tricity back to the grid This is because FiT payments arebased on the total amount of electricity generatedregardless of how much is fed back to the grid It is perhapsbecause of this that the UK Government has recentlyreviewed the FiT scheme and cut payments approximatelyin half for all installations registering FiT eligibility fromMarch 2012 [see 104] Under the revised scheme theincentive for residential PV has decreased to 21 pkWh

It is clear that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme carbonprice currently has a very limited effect on the financialviability of low carbon technologies The government hasproposed to introduce a carbon price floor from 2013 start-ing at pound16tCO2 and rising to pound30tCO2 by 2020 [19] tostrengthen the scheme which compares with the 20102011average of pound1269tCO2 [61] This changewill have a modesteffect on the incentives received by PV and wind installa-tions as they already receive far greater incentives from theFiT and ROCs respectively Nuclear power on the otherhand does not benefit from ROCs or FiT and has costssignificantly lower than wind or PV meaning that a moveto increase the carbon price will significantly strengthen itseconomic case as shown in Table IV present day nuclearpower effectively avoids a carbon tax of 051 pkWh com-pared with its total levelised cost of 95 pkWh At a carbontax of pound30tCO2 the avoided cost becomes 12 pkWhwhichis clearly a more significant incentive



The recently announced lsquocontract-for-differencersquo4 willdirectly subsidise producers of low-carbon electricity byguaranteeing them a set sale price [19] However this isnot included here as its potential cost is currently unclear

The second component of this indicator hidden subsi-dies includes costs that are borne by the economy indirectlyand that serve to increase the economic attractiveness ofparticular technologies For instance nuclear installationsin the UK are currently only required to insure for a maxi-mum liability in case of an accident of pound140m [105](although this is currently being amended to the equivalentof euro12bn or ~ pound105bn [106]) This compares with estimatedlosses to Belarus of $235bn (~pound145bn) over 30 years as a re-sult of the Chernobyl accident [107] The difference arguablyrepresents a subsidy that plant owners receive by not beingrequired to insure their true liability (although it is also truethat such large sums cannot be insured by the market) Ulti-mately the amount paid by the owner in the event of a largeaccident would depend on many unmeasurable variablessuch as the size of the company and the policies of thenational government In addition to insurance caps hiddensubsidies include the following

bull The administrative cost of technology-specific markettools (ROCs FiT and carbon price)

bull Increased maintenance costs incurred by thermalpower plant owners as they are forced to run theirplants more variably to compensate for intermittentrenewables on the grid

bull The costs of increased system reserve due to intermittentrenewables and single large capacity plants on the grid

bull Any subsidies in the production of gas and coal in theUK and

bull Subsidies to fossil fuel production in fossil fuel exportingcountries (if the aim is to evaluate global hidden costs)

Unfortunately most of the aforementioned have not beenanalysed thoroughly for the UK meaning they cannot beincluded in the results presented here Much further work isneeded in this area in part due to a lack of data but alsodue to problems of allocation and uncertainty for examplewhere subsidies are applied to more than one technology si-multaneously or may not be applied in certain cases

32 Environmental sustainability

321 Material recyclabilityRecyclability of input materials Figure 4 shows the

potential recycling rates for each option illustrating that

some technologies are more recyclable than others Forinstance 80ndash90 of a typical coal gas or nuclear plantcan be recycled with the limit largely being due toextensive use of concrete5 In the case of nuclear powerinevitable radioactive contamination will preclude therecycling of somematerials However as discussed in Section2211 for a large plant the mass of contaminated material isestimated to range between 5000 and 14 000 t [6970] whichconstitutes less than 5 of the total plant mass As a result therecyclability of nuclear power plants is not as limited as mightbe expected with an overall estimate of 81

In contrast to conventional plants a typical large offshorewind turbine mounted on steel monopile foundations is upto 99 recyclable as is a typical PV panel and its mountingHowever in reality it is unlikely that such high recyclingrates are achievable Decommissioning an offshore windfarm typically involves leaving a mass of steel in the seabedto reduce cost and minimise disruption to benthic life [seefor instance 108] In the case of typical PV modules solarglass coated in metal oxides makes up a large part of totalmass and this may pose recycling difficulties [109] This isless of a problem for lsquothin-filmrsquo panels such as CdTe asthe amount of glass used is lower

To illustrate the effect of material recycling on the lifecycle environmental impacts Table VII compares theimpacts of material recycling at the current UK rates tothe equivalent impacts without recycling The effect oneach technology is compared using GWP and marine eco-toxicity (MAETP) as illustrative indicators As shown thegreater benefit from recycling is achieved for PV and windthan for the other three options This is because of the ori-gin of their life cycle impacts for gas and coal powerthese are mainly accrued during the extraction and opera-tional phases making the effect of recycling constructionmaterials almost negligible In contrast the majority ofwind and PV life cycle impacts are due to manufacture ofcomponents therefore their recycling yields greaterimprovements An exception to this trend is the MAETPof gas power where significant reductions can be madeby recycling This is because the operational impact ofthe gas life cycle on marine toxicity is very small relativeto the coal and nuclear life cycles (see the section onmarine toxicity below) meaning the impacts from manu-facture and construction are amplified

322 Global warmingGlobal warming potential as shown in Figure 4

nuclear and offshore wind have the lowest GWP withthe central estimates of 62 and 112 g CO2 eqkWh re-spectively By comparison the current average GWP from

4The lsquocontract-for-differencersquo mechanism is essentially a long-term sale price guarantee with the caveat that any revenue ex-ceeding the set price (or lsquostrike pricersquo) is paid back to the govern-ment For instance a generator with an agreed strike price of7 pkWh is guaranteed that incomemdashif the electricity is sold for4 pkWh the government pays the generator the remaining3pkWhmdashbut if the generator sells for 8pkWh the extra 1pkWhis paid back to the government [19]

5Concrete cannot be recycled in the traditional sense it is typi-cally crushed into aggregate some of which is used to manufac-ture new concrete but this requires the addition of new cementA large proportion of crushed concrete is also lsquodowncycledrsquo forvarious applications such as the back-filling of quarries and theengineering of landfill sites Some used concrete is landfilled



the UK electricity mix is 584 g CO2 eqkWh [68] SolarPV is also a relatively good option with GWP of approxi-mately 88 g CO2 eqkWh for the UK mix of PV technolo-gies (see the assumptions in Section 2) Newer PVtechnologies tend to be preferable with ribbon-Si laminateand cadmium-telluride having GWP of 65 and 74 g CO2

eqkWh respectivelyGas power is estimated to generate 379 g CO2 eqkWh

using the most efficient CCGT available Howeverunlike other technologies emissions from CCGTs arelikely to worsen in the future as LNG use continues toincrease and indigenous production continues to declineusing 100 LNG gives a figure of 496 CO2 eqkWhcompared with 366 CO2 eqkWh using only traditionalNorth Sea and European piped gas These figures respec-tively form the upper and lower bounds shown in Figure 4Indeed if the life cycle rather than direct emissions ofgreenhouse gases (GHG) were used in legislation the up-coming EPS [19] would preclude the building of CCGTsfor LNG contribution to the natural gas supply above65mdashthe EPS enforces a limit of 450 g CO2kWh that isbreached beyond this level of LNG use

Coal power is significantly worse than any other optionconsidered here with a central estimate of GWP at 1072CO2 eqkWh

323 Ozone layer depletionOzone layer depletion potential (ODP) since the

Montreal Protocol [110] signatory countries have phasedout production of CFCs and halons However substancesmanufactured in non-signatory countries are still associ-ated with global energy chains making ozone layer deple-tion an extant problem In this respect the PV life cycle is

the least preferable with OPD of 175mg CFC-11 eqkWh32 times that of the best option nuclear power (Figure 4)This is because of the manufacture of tetrafluoroethylenethe polymer of which Teflon is often used in solar cellencapsulation Natural gas is the second worst option withODP of 13-mg CFC-11 eqkWh This is a result of haloge-nated gases used as fire retardants in gas pipelines There-fore there is a dichotomy between global warming andozone layer depletion to reduce the latter using 100LNG is preferable due to the reduced need for gaspipelines but the use of LNG increases global warmingas discussed in Section 322

Again nuclear and offshore wind are comparable with054 and 06 mg CFC-11 eqkWh respectively The anom-alous upper bound of 73mg CFC-11 eqkWh for nuclearpower is due to the sensitivity analysis (Section 2211)considering the impact of enriching uranium via diffusionthe high impact is due to the use of Freon (CFC-114)6 ascoolant in the United States Enrichment Corporation(USEC) diffusion plants However this is of little conse-quence for nuclear power in the UK and is shown here onlyto illustrate worst-case values for ODP

324 AcidificationAcidification potential (AP) the coal life cycle is the

worst option for this indicator with a value of 178 g SO2

eqkWh The vast majority of this impact is from emis-sions of NOx and SO2 during extraction transport andcombustion of the coal itself The second worst option isPV with an AP of 044 g SO2 eqkWh With a factor of10 lower AP (004 g SO2 eqkWh) nuclear power isthe most sustainable option with respect to the life cycleemissions of acid gases

325 EutrophicationEutrophication potential (EP) this environmental

impact shows the same trend as acidification coal poweris the outlier with 0215 g PO4

3 eqkWh predominantlydue to emission of NOx during extraction transportationand combustion of coal As for AP the next worstoption is PV with a value of 0069 g PO4

3 eqkWhHowever certain PV technologies have much lower EPof which the best option is amorphous Si laminate with avalue of 0038 g PO4

3 eqkWh By comparison naturalgas and offshore wind have EP of approximately 006 gPO4

3- eqkWh

326 Photochemical smogPhotochemical oxidant creation potential (POCP) the

ranking of options for this impact is the same as foracidification and eutrophication (Figure 4) with POCP of0140 g C2H4 eqkWh coal is the worst option mainlydue to emissions of volatile organic compounds from

6Although the manufacture of CFCs in the US ended in 1995 inaccordance with the Montreal Protocol there are still largestockpiles of Freon that can be used until exhausted

Table VII Reduction in global warming potential and marineecotoxicity due to end-of-life recycling at current UK ratesa

Reduction of impact relative tono recycling ()

Globalwarmingpotential

Marineecotoxicitypotential

Coal (pulverised) 006 025Gas (CCGT) 005 1916Nuclear (PWR) 214 166Offshore wind (3MW steelmonopile foundation)

2856 5937

PV (domestic mono-Si panel) 1654 4922

CCGT combined cycle gas turbine PWR pressurised water reactorPV photovoltaicsaCurrent UK recycling rates construction aluminium= 95 [102]all other construction metals = 99 [67] plastics = 26 [67] con-crete = 715 (794 as discussed in Section 22121 modifiedwith 90 [103]) paper = 64 [104] fibre-reinforced plastic =10 [105] insulation = 18 [67] ceramics = 64 [67] glass =0 [101]



mining and NOx from combustion of coal Nuclear is thebest option for this indicator with a factor of 28 lowerPOCP (0005 g C2H4 eqkWh)

327 Water ecotoxicityFreshwater ecotoxicity (FAETP) as shown in Figure 4

the options are fairly evenly matched for this impact withthe exception of gas that is by far the best option outper-forming the other technologies by a factor of 6ndash8 Nuclearand wind power have the highest FAETP In the nuclearlife cycle over 70 of this impact is due to long-termemissions of metals such as vanadium copper and beryl-lium from uranium mill tailings For wind the manufactur-ing chains of metals such as steel and nickel are the maincontributors to FAETP

Marine ecotoxicity gas is also by far the best option forMAETP outperforming the worst option coal by severalorders of magnitude The main reason for the high impactfrom coal is emission of hydrogen fluoride (HF) to airduring combustion which contributes 916 to the totalHF emissions also make PV the second worst option butthis time from the metal manufacturing chain

As also indicated by the ranges in Figure 4 for bothmarine and FAETP coal power can be several orders ofmagnitude worse than the other options under worst-caseassumptions (ie a very inefficient plant without pollutionabatement technologies)

328 Land use and qualityTerrestrial ecotoxicity TETP results in Figure 4 show

that although coal has the greatest impact for the centralestimate under the most favourable assumptions it iscomparable with nuclear power offshore wind and PVThe latter two are disadvantaged by their relatively highmetal requirements more than 95 of the impact is dueto emissions of heavy metals such as chromium mercuryand arsenic in the steel and copper production chains Asa result this impact can be reduced by recycling the metalsdecreasing TETP by 28 for wind and 37 for PV Thesame processes contribute significantly to TETP fromnuclear power but to a much lesser extent More than halfof the impact is due to emission of heavy metals to air fromuranium mill tailings The gas option is the best withrespect to this impact

Land occupation over the whole life cycle coal poweroccupies more land (0027m2yr) than the other optionswith 993 of that occupation being by coal mines andassociated infrastructure The second worst option is PVwhich occupies 0005m2yr whereas land occupation bynuclear gas and offshore wind is negligible (Figure 4)Note that the roof space taken up by the PV panels is notincluded as this is not in competition with any otherpotential uses Rather approximately 95 of the total landoccupation by PV is due to production of metals for themanufacture of the panel with the remaining 5 beingthe panel manufacturing site itself

Greenfield land use the greenfield land use indicator isintended to describe the percentage of new power plants

likely to be built on greenfield land and as such only theoperational stage is considered Being positioned onrooftops and at sea PV and offshore wind have a valueof zero Because no new coal plants without CCS will bebuilt in the UK this indicator has not been quantified forcoal Of the eight sites approved for new nuclear buildall but one (Hartlepool) is greenfield despite all of thembeing adjacent to existing nuclear sites This gives thenuclear option a score of 0875 meaning that 875 ofnew nuclear power plants will be built on greenfield land(Figure 4 and Table VI) In contrast no CCGTs arecurrently proposed on greenfield sites

33 Social sustainability

331 Provision of employmentTotal employment total employment estimates in

Figure 5 comprise direct and indirect employment Theformer is related to the power plant erection operationmaintenance and decommissioning whereas the latterrefers to jobs in fuel mining and production waste man-agement and other services to the plant over its lifetimeThe results show that the gas and nuclear options employthe fewest people 62 and 81 person-yearsTWh respec-tively The coal chain employs more than double this(191 person-yearsTWh) whereas offshore wind and PVprovide the highest employment (368 and 653 person-yearsTWh respectively) The employment for PVincreases significantly (1022 person-yearsTWh) if themanufacture of replacement parts and other indirect opera-tional activities are included The reason that the renew-ables achieve such high employment is in part due totheir lower capacity factors (30 for wind and 86 forPV) electrical output is relatively low compared with thefixed labour requirements for manufacturing installationand maintenance meaning that employment per unit ofelectricity generated is high

However the distribution of employment along the lifecycle differs substantially between the five technologiesFor example the majority (68) of employment for thecoal option is in the mining stage For wind on the otherhand the majority (79) is due to operation and mainte-nance whereas most jobs in the PV life cycle (63) aredue to the installation of the panels on rooftops

Direct employment when indirect employment isexcluded from the total coal and nuclear power becomecomparable each providing direct employment of 56person-yearsTWh The gas option has the lowest directemployment of 27 person-yearsTWh whereas wind andPV are the best options for this indicator with 305 and537 person-yearsTWh respectively

332 Human health impactsWorker injuries life cycle worker injuries closely

mirror employment as injuries occur in all professionsmeaning that more employment generally causes moreinjuries However injury rates are particularly high in theconstruction and mining sectors giving coal power a



disproportionately high injury rate owing to the dominanceof mining in the total employment (Figure 5) As a resultthe coal life cycle causes approximately 45 injuries (fatalmajor and minor) per TWh 91 of which occur at themining stage However this is exceeded by the PV lifecycle that causes 484 injuries per TWh primarily dueto its extremely high employment rate This injury rate is8ndash9 times that of gas or nuclear power

Human toxicity potential excluding radiation the rank-ing of the options for this social impact is very similarwith the exception of nuclear power (Figure 5) Emissionsof heavy metals including arsenic and chromium aresubstantial in the nuclear life cycle the bulk coming fromuranium mill tailings ultimately making nuclear powerthe most toxic option to humans with HTP of 115 g DCBeqkWh By comparison the best option gas has thevalue of 54 g DCB eqkWh less than 5 of the impactfrom nuclear power

As is the case for worker injuries PV has a greaterimpact than coal on the basis of the central estimatesHowever although 78 of HTP from coal power is causedin the operational stage due to coal combustion theimpact from PV is predominantly caused by emissions ofheavy metals in the metal production chain and cantherefore be reduced by recycling the sensitivity analysisshows that recycling a mono-Si PV panel reduces itsHTP by 54 Similarly although HTP for offshorewind is relatively high this can be reduced by 51 byend-of-life recycling

It should be noted that there is currently a disagreementbetween LCA impact methodologies over HTP results Asdiscussed according to the CML methodology [6263]used in this study nuclear and solar PV have the highestHTP this same trend is observed using the IM-PACT2002+ methodology [111] However aerial emis-sions from coal combustion give coal power the highesthuman health impact according to the Eco-indicator 99[65] EDIP2003 [112] and RECIPE [66] methodologiesThis uncertainty suggests that further analysis is warrantedin this area Until then the result of this particular indicatorshould be viewed as tentative

Total human health impacts from radiation All fivetechnologies have health impacts related to radiationbecause of the background processes in their respective lifecycles This is typically as a result of emissions of radonand thorium during mining and milling processes How-ever the impact of nuclear power is an order of magnitudegreater than that of any other option with a value of 203disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per TWh (Figure 5)Approximately 90 of this impact is caused by emissionsto air of radon-222 from uranium mine tailings over aperiod of thousands of years with the remainder beingemissions of isotopes like carbon-14 during power plantoperation (although this will vary with reactor type)

To put the radiation health impacts from nuclear powerin context the health impact from global nuclear electricitygeneration of 2600 TWhyr [113] is roughly 53 000DALYsyr In comparison COMEAP [114] estimates that

as a result of anthropogenic air pollution up to 597 000life-years were lost in 2008 in the UK alonemdashthis refersto premature deaths only and excludes disability inducedby the pollution

333 Large accident riskFatalities due to large accidents the risk of large acci-

dents is a particularly important issue for nuclear powerUsing probabilistic safety assessment the Paul ScherrerInstitut estimates that a new nuclear power station suchas the EPR would cause 122 103 fatalitiesPWh [89]In other words if global nuclear capacity was replacedwith EPRs and electricity production levels remained thesame as the present one fatality would be expected every315 years as a result of large accidents [calculated from113] This represents by far the lowest fatality rate of thetechnologies assessed here and is due to a low probabilityof occurrence However a single large accident at anEPR in Europe if it were to happen could cause up to49 000 fatalities [89] The difference in these two resultsillustrates the fact that this issue is as much about riskperception as objective estimates most people are morewilling to accept a situation with a high probability ofminor detriment than one with a low probability of greatdetriment even if the total detriment caused by the formeris higher

In contrast to nuclear power coal power is associatedwith high-frequency moderate-impact accidents the vastmajority of which occur during extraction processingand transportation of the coal itself As a result it has thehighest life cycle fatality rate of the options consideredcausing an estimated 207 fatalitiesPWh (Figure 5) Gaspower is significantly better at 508 fatalitiesPWhHowever the renewable technologies have relatively lowfatality rates (077 and 114 fatalitiesPWh for offshorewind and PV respectively) with very low possible fatali-ties thereby avoiding the negative risk perception oftenassociated with nuclear power [115]

334 Local community impacts and human rightsand corruption

As mentioned in Section 2 these impacts have not beenconsidered because they are company-specific and there-fore not applicable for technology assessment For furtherdiscussion see Stamford and Azapagic [5]

335 Energy securityAlongside climate change energy security is the key

driver of UK energy policy [19] There are several facetsto energy security and the indicators discussed here ad-dress primarily fuel supply diversity and resilience to fuelsupply disruptions The other element of energy securityis the delivery of electricity to consumers which dependson the stability of grid infrastructure and the ability ofgenerators to match supply to demand This is addressedto the extent that it falls within the bounds of this studyby the dispatchability indicators discussed in Section 311



Avoidance of fossil fuel imports the fossil fuel plantsthat currently provide around 75 of UK electricity areestimated here to use on average 200 t of oil-equivalent(toe) per GWh (Figure 5) The avoidance of this by non-fossil capacity (nuclear wind and PV) represents a nationalincrease in resilience to fossil fuel price volatility How-ever it should be noted that an increase in nuclear windand PV capacity which are less dispatchable may forcethe remaining fossil plants to operate less efficiently asthey are increasingly needed to follow load As mentionedpreviously extra system reserve capacity may also berequired Therefore it may not be realistic to suggest thata GWh of non-fossil electricity displaces 200 toe as thisis likely to be lower

Diversity of fuel supply mix this indicator reflects theresilience of national electricity production to fuel supplydisruptions whether they are economic technical or polit-ical Because of the incorporation of the Simpson Indexinto this indicator as detailed in [5] performance isimproved by producing more fuel indigenously importingfrom more countries or reducing dependence on one or twomajor suppliers By this definition wind and PV haveinfinite supply diversity Uranium being an energy-densefuel traded on the world market is not specificallyimported to the UK Rather large electric utilities normallybuy prefabricated fuel assemblies on the European marketFor this reason EU uranium import figures are moreappropriate and have been used here giving the nuclearoption a score of 086 (Figure 5) This is similar to thesupply diversity for natural gas (084) Coal has the lowestscore at 072 as a result of low indigenous production andhigh reliance on Russia which in 2009 supplied 47 ofthe total UK demand and represented 56 of coal importsAs shown in Figure 6 the diversity score of coal isgradually declining toward the value for natural gas inUkraine during the 20052006 gas crisis that had dramatic

social and economic consequences for Ukraine and muchof Europe

Natural gas supply to the UK decreased in diversityfollowing the countryrsquos change in status from net producerto importer in 2004 However rapid introduction of LNGimports is reversing this trend (although the UKrsquos gassupply diversity is still below that of the USA) Howeveras discussed in Section 322 increased use of LNG alsoleads to higher environmental impacts such as GWP

Fuel storage capabilities this indicator shows inherentresilience energy dense fuels are physically easier to trans-port and store to be used when supply is problematic Inthis respect nuclear power is by far the best optionAssuming a burn-up of 50GWdtU conservative for newreactors [see for example 28] a nuclear fuel assemblyhas an energy density of 10 367 000GJm3 (Figure 5) Thiscompares with an average value of 212GJm3 for coalimported to the UK Compared with gas at 0036GJm3the difference is even more pronounced Wind and PVhave zero fuel storage capabilities because despite windand sunlight having a derivable energy density theycannot be stored and therefore do not contribute to thesame goal Note that fuel storage should not be confusedwith electricity storage

336 Nuclear proliferationThe use of non-enriched uranium reprocessing and

requirement for enriched uranium nuclear proliferationclearly only applies to the nuclear option and as such isconsidered in a relatively simple form here Howeverdifferent combinations of reactor type and fuel cyclepresent unique proliferation problems as discussed in [5]New nuclear build in the UK is likely to involve PWRson a once-through cycle with no reprocessing of spent fuelThe only proliferation problem this presents is its require-ment for enriched uranium which arguably contributes to

050

055

060

065

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

UK natural gas Ukraine natural gas USA natural gasUK steam coal UK uranium (EU)

Div

ersi

ty o

f su

pp

ly

Figure 6 Historical diversity of fuel supply index for fuels used for electricity generation



the spread of enrichment technology worldwide On thescale used in this assessment this gives a score of oneout of three (given the aforementioned three componentsof this indicator) If reprocessing of spent fuel occurs atsome point in the future this increases proliferation riskby separating uranium andor plutonium stores of whichmight then become targets of theft or terrorist attack Thiswould raise the score to two out of three The worst casewould involve the use of reprocessing and enrichment ina fuel cycle involving a Magnox or CANDU reactor fromwhich high quality plutonium can be extracted relativelyeasily Nothing of this sort has been proposed for the UKat the time of writing

337 Intergenerational equityThe use of abiotic resources (elements) as indicated

in Figure 5 the use of abiotic elements is highest inthe PV life cycle giving a central estimate of 123 mgSb eqkWh This is around 435 times that of gas powerthe best option for this impact PV is also 260 timesworse than nuclear 125 times higher than coal powerand 15 times worse than offshore wind for this impactThis is primarily due to extensive use of metals andmetalloids in the manufacture of electronic componentsand the PV cell itself Although offshore wind also hasa relatively high impact this is mainly because of theelements contained in steel alloys such as molybdenumHowever as these steel alloy components tend to belarge structural pieces they are arguably much easierto recycle after decommissioning than the smallerscale electronic components that dominate the impactfrom PV

The use of abiotic resources (fossil) the depletion offossil resources is obviously greatest in the coal and gaslife cycles with coal power using 151MJkWh of fossilfuel (Figure 5) The 36 efficient power plant used inthe central case consumes 10MJkWh with the remaining51MJkWh being due to losses during coal mining andprocessing as well as fossil fuel used in transportationThe gas option depletes 2ndash5 times less fossil resources thancoal with a central estimate of 575MJkWh By compar-ison PV consumes 11MJkWh and wind and nuclear 014and 008MJkWh respectively

Volume of radioactive waste and liquid CO2 to bestored production of radioactive waste and CO2 fromCCS represents a burden of storage and monitoringbeing passed to future generations They also representa burden of risk but at the present time this cannot bequantified due to the lack of operating experience withgeological repositories of nuclear waste and supercriticalCO2 The volume of CO2 for sequestration is irrelevanthere as CCS options have not been assessed Howeveraverage lifetime waste production by the two nuclearreactors currently proposed for new build in the UK isestimated at 1016m3TWh This is the packaged volumeand includes spent fuel as well as all intermediatelevel waste from decommissioning such as reactorcomponents filters and resins The value represents a

total lifetime waste volume of 5581m3 for a singleAP1000 and due to its greater rated capacity 6647m3

for an EPR By comparison the UKrsquos current andfuture HLW and ILW arising from past and currentcommitments but not including new build is 489330m3 [116] It should be noted that this does notinclude low-level waste most of which is now recycledor disposed of in near-surface facilities The nuclearoption therefore poses complex intergenerational dilem-mas although it passes the burden of radioactive wastemanagement onto future generations it could also playa significant role in preventing climate changemdashforthe benefits of future generations as well as of ourown [117]

4 CONCLUSIONS

This study has used sustainability indicators to compare theeconomic environmental and social impacts of five majorpotential electricity options for the UK The results suggestthat no one option is the lsquomost sustainablersquo meaning thattrade-offs and compromises are inevitable Therefore thereis no overall lsquowinnerrsquo among the five options Their overallattributes can however be summarised as follows

Traditional coal power is the second cheapest option(gas being first) excluding incentives It also benefits fromsignificantly lower vulnerability to fuel price fluctuationsthan gas with fuel accounting for roughly 30 of the totallevelised cost (versus 75 in the case of gas) Howeverimminent regulations requiring all new power plants to emitless than 450 g CO2kWhmeans that new coal would requireCCS significantly increasing costs Other benefits of coalpower include high economic and technical dispatchabilityand at 119 years the longest lasting conventional fuelreserves of the non-renewable technologies consideredHowever coal is also the worst performer in seven of 11 lifecycle environmental indicators including GWP Addition-ally although it provides the second highest employmentmost of this is in mining and consequently worker injuryrates are high Moreover large accident fatalities are thehighest of all options considered at 207 per TWh Coal isalso by far the worst option in terms of fossil fuel depletionand diversity of fuel supply the latter mainly due to over-reliance on imports from Russia

Gas (CCGT) is the cheapest option but has the highestcost variability due to its high fuel component This isespecially relevant given the continuing decline of UKgas production and increasing reliance on LNG from theinternational market It is however highly dispatchablequick to build and resistant to technological lock-in dueto its relatively short lifetime and high temperature heatproduction However estimated at 63 years natural gashas the lowest reserve lifetime of the technologies consid-ered Furthermore its energy security contribution increas-ingly depends on LNG the use of which could increaseGWP from gas by 36 to 496 g CO2 eqkWh Addition-ally it provides the lowest employment and causes



relatively high fossil fuel depletion For other sustainabilityaspects however gas performs extremely well having thelowest human and ecotoxicity worker injuries anddepletion of elements

The cost of nuclear power is roughly comparable withthat of coal and gas but with a much bigger capital compo-nent meaning that it becomes less attractive at higherdiscount rates Total cost is virtually insensitive to fuel pricechanges and although conventional uranium reserves have arelatively short expected lifetime of around 80 years thiscould increase to 675years with phosphate resources andover 34 000 years if fast reactors become widespreadNuclear power is quite non-dispatchable but this is mainlyan economic issue rather than a technical one meaningpartial load-following is achievable depending on peakelectricity prices Environmentally nuclear is one of the besttwo options (the other one being wind) according to eight ofthe 11 indicators In addition it scores high for the energysecurity indicators It does however have the second lowestlife cycle employment the highest health impact from radia-tion and arguably the greatest intergenerational impactproducing ~6000m3 of waste requiring geological storageper reactor lifetime However this should be weighedagainst the intergenerational impact of climate change forwhich nuclear is the best option Nuclear power also hasthe potential to cause the highest number of fatalities in asingle incident although in terms of the rate of large accidentfatalities it is the best option causing nearly 17 000 timesfewer fatalities than the coal life cycle

Wind power has significantly lower costs than PValthough still much higher than the other options This is inpart due to the high operation and maintenance costsincurred as owners attempt to improve availability factorsThe incentives currently available to offshore wind total82 pkWh and compare with the 406 pkWh recentlyavailable to PV which illustrates the fact that the indirectcost to consumers of making offshore wind competitive is324 pkWh lower than that of PV Even with the newdecreased residential PV incentive of 21 pkWh offshorewind is still 128 pkWh cheaper Aswind is non-dispatchablecosts depend heavily on capacity factors which should im-prove as newer larger turbines become widespread Wind isone of the best environmental options and broadly comparablewith nuclear power It only performs badly in freshwater andterrestrial eco-toxicity due to its high metal requirements Pro-vision of employment is second highest at 368 person-yearsTWhwhereas it is amiddle-ranking option in terms ofworkerinjuries and HTP Being fuelless in the conventional sense in

some respects it increases energy security although its non-dispatchability potentially necessitates increasedgrid-level re-serve capacityOffshorewind has few intergenerational equityissues apart fromnon-fossil resource depletion although eventhis is an order of magnitude lower than that of PV

Solar PV performs poorly according to many indicatorsmainly due to the relatively low insolation in the UK com-pared with countries such as Spain and the USA The effectof this is high resource requirement being badly balancedagainst low electrical output It has extremely high costs re-cently necessitating incentives of 406 pkWhmdasha cost that isultimately passed on to consumers (although as previouslymentioned this has recently decreased to 21 pkWh) Envi-ronmental performance is relatively poor with the highestODP as well as the second worst result in five of the remain-ing 10 indicators Many of these results can be improved sig-nificantly by recycling as most impacts are accrued duringresource extraction and processing However even then theimpacts tend to be higher than those of nuclear gas and inseveral cases offshore wind In terms of social impacts PVprovides the highest employment of the five options but con-sequently the highest worker injuries It also has the secondhighest HTP and the highest depletion of abiotic elements ex-ceeding the next worst option by a factor of 15

Ultimately decisions on future technologies andelectricity mix in the UK will depend on many differentfactors some of which have been discussed in this paperIt is obvious that compromises will have to be made andthese will be determined by the priorities and preferencesof different stakeholders A forthcoming paper exploreshow these priorities and preferences expressed by a rangeof stakeholders consulted in the course of this researchinfluence the outcomes of the sustainability assessment ofelectricity options examined in this paper

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was carried out as part of the SPRIng projectaimed at developing a decision-support framework forassessing the sustainability of nuclear power led by theUniversity of Manchester and carried out in collaborationwith City and Southampton Universities The authorsacknowledge gratefully the Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Economicand Social Research Council (ESRC) for supporting thiswork financially (Grant no EPF0014441) Additionallywe thank Peter Burgherr and the Paul Scherrer Institut fordata regarding large accident fatality estimates



TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom

binedcyclegasturbine

PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVphotovoltaics



TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES

1 European Commission Industrial emissions large com-bustion plants directive 2001 4 June 2010 Availablefrom httpeceuropaeuenvironmentairpollutantsstationarylcphtm [Accessed on 22 September 2010]

2 BERR Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics2010 Chapter 4 Natural Gas Department forBusiness Enterprise and Regulatory Reform TSO(The Stationery Office) Norwich UK 2010

3 World Nuclear Association Nuclear Power inthe United Kingdom 2011 September Availablefrom httpwwwworld-nuclearorginfoinf84html[Accessed on 4 January 2011]

4 Climate Change Act Her Majestyrsquos Stationery OfficeLondon UK 2008

5 Stamford L Azapagic A Sustainability indicators forthe assessment of nuclear power Energy 2011 36(10)6037ndash6057

6 BERR Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics2010 Department for Business Enterprise andRegulatory Reform TSO (The Stationery Office)Norwich UK 2010

7 The Crown Estate Offshore Wind Energy Round 32010 Available from httpwwwthecrownestatecoukround3 [Accessed on 26 April 2011]

8 RenewableUK UKWED Statistics 2011 Availablefrom httpwwwbweacomstatistics [Accessed on21 April 2011]

9 Ofgem Renewables Obligation Guidance for licensedelectricity suppliers (GB and NI) Office of Gas andElectricity Markets Ofgem London 2010

10 Energy Saving Trust Feed-in Tariff scheme 2011Available from httpwwwenergysavingtrustorgukGenerate-your-own-energySell-your-own-energyFeed-in-Tariff-scheme [Accessed on 26 April 2011]

11 Ofgem FIT Installations Statistical Report Availablefrom httpswwwrenewablesandchpofgemgovukPublicReportManageraspxReportVisibility=1ampRe-portCategory=0 [Accessed on 26 April 2011]

12 DECC National Policy Statement for Nuclear PowerGeneration (EN-6) TSO (The Stationery Office)London 2011

13 Weightman M Japanese earthquake and tsunamiimplications for the UK nuclear industry FinalReport HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear InstallationsOffice for Nuclear Regulation 2011

14 HM Treasury Budget 2011 TSO (The StationeryOffice) London 2011

15 DECC Recent decisions on applications EnergyInfrastructure 2011 Available from httpswwwogdeccgovukEIPpagesrecenthtm [Accessed on10 May 2011]

16 RWE npower Tilbury power station 2011 Availablefrom httpwwwrwecomwebcmsen306514rwe-npowerabout-usour-businessesnew-power-stationstilbury [Accessed on 10 May 2011]

17 Newbery DM Pollitt MG The restructuring andprivatisation of Britainrsquos CEGBmdashwas it worth it TheJournal of Industrial Economics 1997 45(3)269ndash303

18 National Grid National Electricity TransmissionSystem Seven Year Statement Chapter 3 GenerationNational Grid Electricity Transmission plc WarwickUK 2010

19 DECC Planning Our Electric Future A White Paperfor Secure Affordable and Low-Carbon ElectricityDepartment of Energy and Climate Change TSO(The Stationery Office) Norwich UK 2011

20 DECC CCS Roadmap Supporting Deployment ofCarbon Capture and Storage in the UK Departmentof Energy and Climate Change London 2012

21 Bauer C Heck T Dones R Mayer-Spohn O Blesl MFinal report on technical data costs and life cycle inven-tories of advanced fossil power generation systems InDeliverableD72mdashRS 1a NEEDS (NewEnergy Exter-nalities Development for Sustainability) 2008

22 Schenler W Bauer C Burgherr P Hirschberg SBachmann T Gallego Carrera D Simons A Finalreport on indicator database for sustainabilityassessment of advanced electricity supply options InDeliverable D101 mdash RS 2b NEEDS (New EnergyExternalities Development for Sustainability) 2008

23 Hirschberg S Bauer C Burgherr P Dones R SimonsA Schenler W Bachmann T Gallego Carrera DFinal set of sustainability criteria and indicators forassessment of electricity supply options InDeliverableD32 mdash RS 2b NEEDS (New Energy ExternalitiesDevelopment for Sustainability) 2008

24 Burgherr P Hirschberg S Brukmajster D Hampel JSurvey of criteria and indicators In Deliverable D11mdash RS 2b NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Devel-opment for Sustainability) 2005

25 BERR Meeting the Energy Challenge A WhitePaper on Nuclear Power Department for BusinessEnterprise and Regulatory Reform TSO (The Statio-nery Office) Norwich UK 2008

26 HSE Background - assessment of new nuclear powerstations 10 August 2010 Available from httpwwwhsegovuknewreactorsbackgroundhtm[Accessed on 28 September 2010]

27 World Nuclear Association Mixed Oxide (MOX)Fuel 2009 March Available from httpwwwworld-nuclearorginfoinf29html [Accessed on 28September 2010]

28 AREVA NP and EDF Pre-construction Safety ReportIssue 02 UK EPRtrade GDA Submission 2009



Available from httpwwwepr-reactorcoukscriptsssmodpubligencontenttemplatesshowaspP=290ampL=EN [Accessed on 22 September 2010]

29 Fetterman RJ AP1000 core design with 50 MOXloadingAnnals of Nuclear Energy 2009 36(3)324ndash330

30 Risoslash National Laboratory European Wind AtlasTroen I Petersen EL (eds) Risoslash National Labora-tory Roskilde 1989

31 IAEA Power reactor information system 2011Available from httpwwwiaeaoratprogrammesa2 [Accessed on 26 May 2011]

32 Munzinger M Crick F Dayan EJ Pearsall N MartinC PV Domestic Field Trial Final Technical ReportDepartment of Trade and Industry London 2006

33 Scottish and Southern Energy plc Annual ReportScottish and Southern Energy plc Perth UK 2009

34 NERC Generating Availability Data System Avail-able from httpwwwnerccompagephpcid=4|43|47 [Accessed on October 2010]

35 RenewableUK BWEA briefing sheet wind turbinetechnology RenewableUK (formerly British WindEnergy Association) London 2005

36 Jahn U Nasse W Performance analysis and reliabilityof grid-connected PV systems in IEA countriesProceedings of 3rd World Conference on PhotovoltaicEnergy Conversion 2003

37 BERR Scroby Sands Offshore Wind Farm AnnualReport 2005 Department for Business Enterpriseand Regulatory Reform 2006

38 BERR Capital Grant Scheme for the North HoyleOffshore Wind Farm Annual Report June 2005 -June 2006 Department for Business Enterprise andRegulatory Reform 2007

39 BERR Capital Grant Scheme for Offshore WindKentish Flats Offshore Wind Farm Annual ReportJanuary 2006 -December 2006 Department forBusiness Enterprise and Regulatory Reform 2007

40 BERR Capital Grant Scheme for Scroby SandsOffshore Wind Annual Report January 2006 -December 2006 Department for Business Enterpriseand Regulatory Reform 2007

41 BERR Offshore Wind Capital Grant SchemeNorth Hoyle Offshore Wind Farm 3rd Annual ReportDepartment for Business Enterprise and RegulatoryReform 2008

42 BERR Offshore Wind Capital Grant Scheme ScrobySands Offshore Wind Farm 3rd Annual ReportDepartment for Business Enterprise and RegulatoryReform 2008

43 BERR Offshore Wind Capital Grant Scheme KentishFlats Offshore Wind Farm 3rd Annual Report Depart-ment for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform2009

44 BERR Offshore Wind Capital Grant Scheme KentishFlats Offshore Wind Farm 2nd Annual Report Depart-ment for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform2009

45 BERR Offshore Wind Capital Grant Scheme BarrowOffshore Wind Farm 2nd Annual Report Departmentfor Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform 2009

46 BERR Offshore Wind Capital Grant SchemeBarrow Offshore Wind Farm 1st Annual ReportDepartment for Business Enterprise and RegulatoryReform 2009

47 Elexon Ltd Balancing Mechanism ReportingSystem Available from httpwwwbmreportscombwx_homehtm [Accessed on 24 January 2011]

48 NEA and IAEA Uranium 2009 Resources Produc-tion and Demand OECD Publishing Paris 2010

49 BP Statistical Review of World Energy BP plcLondon 2010

50 World Nuclear Association WNA Nuclear CenturyOutlook Data 2010 June Available from httpwwwworld-nuclearorgoutlooknuclear_century_out-lookhtml [Accessed on 06 June 2011]

51 US Energy Information Administration Interna-tional Energy Outlook US Energy InformationAdministration Washington DC 2010

52 BGR Annual Report 2009 Reserves Resources andAvailability of Energy Resources Federal Institutefor Geosciences and Natural Resources HanoverGermany 2009

53 NEA Risks and Benefits of Nuclear Energy OECDPublications Paris 2007

54 Harrabin R IEA doubles global gas reserves esti-mates BBC News 2011 20 January Available fromhttpwwwbbccouknewsbusiness-12245633[Accessed on 2 June 2011]

55 Mott MacDonald UK electricity generation costsupdate Brighton UK 2010

56 IEA andNEAProjected Costs of Generating Electricity2010 Edition OECD Publications Paris 2010

57 DTI Nuclear Power Generation Cost Benefit Analy-sis Department of Trade and Industry 2006 Avail-able online httpwebarchivenationalarchivesgovuktna+httpwwwberrgovukfilesfile31938pdf

58 Ernst amp Young LLP Cost of and Financial Supportfor Offshore Wind A Report for the Department ofEnergy and Climate Change Department of Energyand Climate Change London 2009

59 IEA and NEA Projected Costs of Generating Elec-tricity 2005 Update OECD Publications Paris 2005

60 MIT Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power Du YParsons JE (eds) Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy Centre for Energy and Environmental PolicyResearch Cambridge USA 2009



61 DECC EU ETS News 2011 Available from httpwwwdeccgovukencontentcmswhat_we_dochange_energytackling_climaemissionseu_etsnewsnewsaspx [Accessed on 02 June 2011]

62 Guineacutee JB Gorreacutee M Heijungs R Huppes GKleijn R de Koning A van Oers L WegenerSleeswijk A Suh S Udo de Haes HA de BruijnH van Duin R Huijbregts MAJ Handbook on LifeCycle Assessment Operational Guide to the ISO Stan-dards Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht 2002692

63 van Oers L CML-IA Characterisation Factors Avail-able from httpcmlleidenedusoftwaredata-cmliahtml [Accessed on 22 September 2010]

64 Bare JC Traci Journal of Industrial Ecology 20026(3ndash4)49ndash78

65 Goedkoop M Spriensma R The Eco-indicator 99 ADamage Oriented Method for Life Cycle ImpactAssessment Methodology Annex Amersfoort PReacuteConsultants 2001

66 Goedkoop M Heijungs R Huijbregts M De SchryverA Struijs J van Zelm R ReCiPe 2008 A Life CycleImpact Assessment Method which Comprises Harmo-nised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and theEndpoint Level ndash First Edition (revised) Dutch Minis-try of Housing Spatial Planning and Environment(VROM) The Hague 2012

67 Rockwool Ltd Sustainability 2011 Available fromhttpwwwrockwoolcouksustainabilitysustainability[Accessed on June 2011]

68 Ecoinvent Centre Ecoinvent Database v22Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories St GallenSwitzerland 2010

69 Nagra Radioaktive Abfaumllle Eigenschaften undZuteilung auf die Endlager-Typen Nationale Genos-senschaft fuumlr die Lagerung radioaktiver AbfaumllleBaden Switzerland 1985

70 EDF EPR UK ndash Decommissioning Waste InventoryCentre drsquoIngeacutenierie Deacuteconstruction et EnvironnementVilleurbanne France 2008

71 PE International GaBi 4 PE International StuttgartEchterdingen 2008

72 IEA-PVPS Compared assessment of selected enviro-nemental indicators of photovoltaic electricity inOECD cities European Photovoltaic TechnologyPlatform and European Photovoltaic Industry Associ-ation International Energy Agency PhotovoltaicPower Systems Programme 2006 Available fromhttpwwwiea-pvpsorg

73 Jungbluth N Tuchschmid M de Wild-Scholten MLife Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaics Updateof Ecoinvent Data v20 ESU-services Ltd UsterSwitzerland 2008

74 Kouloumpis V Azapagic A Life Cycle EnvironmentalImpacts of Electricity From Offshore Wind TurbinesSPRIng Project The University of Manchester 2011

75 Construction Resources and Waste PlatformManagement of Non-Aggregate Waste BRE GarstonUK 2008

76 Dones R Bauer C Roumlder A Kohle ecoinvent reportNo 6-VI Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen SwitzerlandSwiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories DuumlbendorfSwitzerland 2007

77 DECC Revised Draft National Policy Statementfor Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6) TSO (TheStationery Office) London 2010

78 BHP Billiton Annual Report 2010 MelbourneAustralia 2010

79 Mineral Products Association Employment 2010Available from httpwwwmineralproductsorgsus-tainabilityemploymenthtml [Accessed on December2010]

80 Corus Report and Accounts 2006 London 200681 Cogent Next generation skills for new build nuclear

In Renaissance Nuclear Skills Series Cogent SSCLtd Warrington 2010

82 OrsquoSullivan M Edler D Kv M Nieder T Lehr UGross Employment From Renewable Energy inGermany in 2010 Federal Ministry for the Environ-ment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety 2011

83 OrsquoSullivan M Data on Employment L StamfordStuttgart Germany 2011 [Personal Communication9 September]

84 Areva 2009 Reference Document Areva Paris2010

85 Oil amp Gas UK Economic Report The UnitedKingdom Offshore Oil and Gas Industry AssociationLimited London 2010

86 The Coal Authority Coal mining technologies andproduction statistics 2010 Available from httpwwwcoalgovukpublicationsminingtechnologyindexcfm [Accessed on December 2010]

87 Chamber of Mines of South Africa Facts amp Figures-2009 Chamber of Mines of South Africa

Johannesburg South Africa 201088 HSE Hands-on statistics data tool Available from

httpshandsonhsegovukhsepublichomeaspx[Accessed on March 2011]

89 Burgherr P Accident Risk Indicators Paul SchirrerInstitut Villigen Switzerland 2010 [PersonalCommunication 5 July 2010]

90 Burgherr P Hirschberg S Cazzoli E Final report onquantification of risk indicators for sustainabilityassessment of future electricity supply options InDeliverable D71 mdash RS 2b NEEDS (New EnergyExternalities Development for Sustainability) 2008



91 Hirschberg S Bauer C Schenler W Burgherr PSustainable electricity wishful thinking or near-termreality Energie-Spiegel Facts for the EnergyDecisions of Tomorrow 2010 20

92 Euratom Supply Agency Annual Report 2009European Union Publications Office of the EuropeanUnion Luxembourg 2010

93 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Generic DesignAssessment Summary of Disposability Assessment forWastes and Spent Fuel arising from Operation of theUK EPR Nuclear Decommissioning AuthorityDidcot UK 2009

94 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Generic DesignAssessment Summary of Disposability Assessment forWastes and Spent Fuel arising from Operation of theWestinghouse AP1000 Nuclear DecommissioningAuthority Didcot UK 2009

95 Milborrow D Managing Variability Report toWWF-UK RSPB Greenpeace UK Friends of theEarth EWNI Godalming UK 2009

96 National Grid Operating the Electricity TransmissionNetworks in 2020 ndash Update June 2011 National Gridplc Warwick UK 2011

97 SunEdison SunEdison interconnects Europersquos largestsingle operating PV solar power plant 2010 Availablefrom httpwwwsunedisoncompress_releasesphpid=118 [Accessed on 1 July 2011]

98 4C Offshore Global Offshore Windfarms DatabaseAvailable from httpwww4coffshorecomwind-farms [Accessed on August 2010]

99 World Nuclear News Olkiluoto 3 start-up lsquomay bepostponed until 2012rsquo 2008 October 17 Availablefrom httpwwwworld-nuclear-newsorgnewsarti-cleaspxid=23202ampterms=olkiluoto [Accessed on 3June 2009]

100 Padilla E Intergenerational equity and sustainabilityEcological Economics 2002 41(1)69ndash83

101 World Nuclear News Risks of new build tip EdFrsquosbalance 2010 July 30 Available from httpwwwworld-nuclear-newsorgnewsarticleaspxid=28144ampterms=flamanville20cost [Accessed on 13 July2011]

102 RWE npower Willington C CCGT EnvironmentalStatement ndash Non-Technical Summary RWE npowerplc Swindon 2009

103 World Nuclear Association The economics ofnuclear power 2010 April Available from httpwwwworld-nuclearorginfoinf02html [Accessedon 17 June 2010]

104 DECC Feed-in Tariffs Scheme GovernmentResponse to Consultation on Comprehensive ReviewPhase 1 ndash Tariffs for solar PV Department of Energyand Climate Change London 2012

105 Nuclear Installations Act Her Majestyrsquos StationeryOffice London UK 1965

106 DECC Implementation of changes to the Paris andBrussels Conventions on nuclear third party liabilitya public consultation 2011 Available from httpwwwdeccgovukencontentcmsconsultationsparis_brusselsparis_brusselsaspx [Accessed on13 July 2011]

107 The Chernobyl Forum Chernobylrsquos Legacy HealthEnvironmental and Socio-Economic Impacts Inter-national Atomic Energy Agency Austria 2006

108 Greater Gabbard Offshore Winds Ltd Decommission-ing ProgrammeGreater GabbardOffshoreWind FarmProject Greater Gabbard Offshore Winds Ltd 2007

109 WRAP RampD to Improve Site Practices for Collectionand Clean Separation of Composite (Glass) Materialsin the Construction andDemolition Industry TheWasteamp Resources Action Programme Banbury 2004

110 UNEP Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Sub-stances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (8th) UnitedNations Environment Programme Secretariat forThe Vienna Convention for the Protection of theOzone Layer amp The Montreal Protocol on Substancesthat Deplete the Ozone Layer Nairobi 2009

111 Jolliet O Margni M Charles R Humbert S Payet JRebitzer G Rosenbaum R IMPACT 2002+ a newlife cycle impact assessment methodology Interna-tional Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 20038(6)324ndash330

112 Potting J Hauschild M Background for SpatialDifferentiation in LCA Impact Assessment - TheEDIP2003 methodology Danish EnvironmentalProtection Agency Copenhagen 2004

113 World Nuclear Association Nuclear share of electricitygeneration 2011 June Available from httpwwwworld-nuclearorginfonsharehtml [Accessed on 27July 2011]

114 COMEAP The Mortality Effects of Long-TermExposure to Particulate Air Pollution in the UnitedKingdom Committee on the Medical Effects of AirPollutants Didcot UK 2010

115 Goodfellow MJ Williams HR Azapagic A Nuclearrenaissance public perception and design criteriaan exploratory review Energy Policy 201139(10)6199ndash6210

116 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority The 2010 UKRadioactive Waste Inventory Main Report Depart-ment of Energy and Climate Change NuclearDecommissioning Authority Didcot UK 2011

117 Azapagic A Perdan S Sustainability of nuclear powerIn Sustainable Development in Practice Case Studiesfor Engineers and Scientists Azapagic A Perdan S(eds) John Wiley amp Sons Chichester 2011



worker injuries diversity of fuel supply mixes nuclearproliferation and intergenerational equity

The prospects for these five technologies in the future UKelectricity mix are discussed in brief in the succeeding text

Current policy aims to increase substantially theinstalled capacity of wind power particularly offshoreinstallations In December 2000 The Crown Estate beganawarding sites in UK waters to potential wind farm devel-opers and this process has continued in three lsquoroundsrsquo ofdevelopment each successively larger than the last(although at the time of writing rounds two and threeare yet to be completed) The three rounds total a potentialinstalled capacity of 33GW [7] roughly 25 times thecapacity of operational offshore wind farms in the UK in2011 [calculated from 8] The scale of this expansion isreflected in the emphasis given to offshore wind in theRenewables Obligation [9] that functions as the main stim-ulus for renewable energy technologies in the UK whereasmany renewables such as onshore wind and hydroelectric-ity receive one Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC)per MWh produced offshore wind receives between 15and 2 in order to attract investment by offsetting itsrelatively high costs

Another renewable option favoured in the UK is solarPV Because the introduction of the Feed-in Tariff (FiT)in April 2010 large energy suppliers have been requiredto make payments to owners of small-scale (lt5MW)renewable installations such as PV based on the totalamount of electricity produced as well as exported to thegrid [10] Although PV until recently only supplied a tinypercentage of UK electricity (approximately 0005 in2009 [6]) in its first full year of operation the FiT hadresulted in 28 705 PV installations totalling 78MW [11]this is more than triple the total installed capacity in 2009[calculated from 6] It seems therefore that PV is set tobecome a significant generating technology in the UK

The government is also trying to encourage newnuclear build as exemplified in its recent National Policy

Statement for Nuclear Power Generation [12] ldquogiventhe urgent need to decarbonise our electricity supplyand enhance the UKrsquos energy security and diversity ofsupply the Government believes that new nuclearpower stations need to be developed significantly earlierthan the end of 2025rdquo All indications are that thispolicy will survive the Fukushima incident as also con-firmed by the recent Weightman report on the safetyand security of nuclear plants in the UK [13] Nuclearpower is one of the technologies that will benefit froma carbon floor price to be introduced from 2013 start-ing at around pound16t CO2 [14] Currently up to 19GWof new nuclear capacity has been proposed by variousutilities and consortia [3]

At the present time electricity from natural gas and coalstill dominates the UK electricity mix providing 45 and27 of electricity in 2009 respectively (Figure 1) How-ever unlike coal gas power is still expanding particularlycombined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) Owing primarily totheir low capital costs and the fact that they are a proventechnology CCGTs are likely to remain significant contri-butors to UK energy supply since the beginning of 2009the government has given planning consent to 105GWof new CCGT capacity [15] Moreover there is evidencethat some utilities are abandoning plans to build coal plantsin favour of CCGTs for various reasons [for example 16]as discussed in the succeeding text

UK coal power has declined greatly in the last2ndash3 decades When the UK electricity sector was privatisedin 1990 coal produced 72 of electricity [17] Followingprivatisation and the subsequent lsquodash for gasrsquo thisfigure declined rapidly and in 2009 stood at 27 [6]The contribution of coal will again decline markedlyover the next few years as a result of the EU LargeCombustion Plant Directive a total of 85 GW of coalplants have opted out of the LCPD and are thereforeoperating for limited hours and will permanently shutdown by 1 January 2016 [18] Additionally the new

Figure 1 Current UK electricity mix (based on electricity supply in 2009 [6])




















TableI

Sum

maryof

theindicators

used

forasse

ssingthesu

staina

bilityof

elec

tricity

optio

ns[5]

Sus

tainab

ility

issu

eIndicator

Unit

Tech

no-eco

nomic

Ope

rability

1Cap

acity

factor

(pow

erou

tput

asape

rcen

tage

ofthemaxim

umpo

ssible

output)

Perce

ntag

e(

)2

Availabilityfactor

(perce

ntag

eof

timeaplan

tis

availableto

prod

uceelec

tricity

)Perce

ntag

e(

)3

Tech

nicald

ispa

tcha

bility(ra

mp-up

rateram

p-do

wnratem

inim

umup

time

minim

umdo

wntim

e)Sum

med

rank

4Eco

nomic

disp

atch

ability

(ratio

ofcapitalc

ostto

totallev

elised

gene

ratio

nco

st)

Dim

ension

less

5Lifetim

eof

glob

alfuel

rese

rves

atcu

rren

tex

tractio

nrates

Yea

rsTe

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce6

Ratio

ofplan

tflex

ibility

(abilityfortrigen

eration

nega

tiveGWPan

dor

H2prod

uctio

n)an

dop

erationa

llife

time

Yea

rs1

Immed

iacy

7Timeto

plan

tstart-u

pfrom

startof

cons

truc

tion

Yea

rsLe

velised

cost

ofge

neratio

n8

Cap

italc

osts

Pen

cekWh

9Ope

ratio

nan

dmainten

ance

costs

Pen

cekWh

10F

uelc

osts

Pen

cekWh

11T

otal

leve

lised

cost

Pen

cekWh

Cos

tvaria

bility

12F

uelp

ricese

nsitivity

(ratio

offuel

cost

tototallev

elised

gene

ratio

nco

st)

Dim

ension

less

Fina

ncialinc

entiv

es13

Finan

cial

ince

ntives

andassistan

ce(egR

OCs

taxp

ayer

burden

s)Pen

cekWh

Env

ironm

ental

Materialrec

yclability

14R

ecyclabilityof

inpu

tmaterials

Perce

ntag

e(

)Globa

lwarming

15G

loba

lwarmingpo

tential(GHG

emission

s)kg

CO

2eq

kWh

Ozone

laye

rde

pletion

16O

zone

depletionpo

tential(CFC

andha

loge

natedHCem

ission

s)kg

CFC

-11eq

kWh

Acidificatio

n17

Acidificatio

npo

tential(SO

2N

OxHCla

ndNH3em

ission

s)kg

SO

2eq

kWh

Eutroph

ication

18E

utroph

icationpo

tential(NN

OxNH4+P

O43etc)

kgPO

43eq

kWh

Pho

toch

emical

smog

19P

hotoch

emical

oxidan

tcrea

tionpo

tential(VOCsan

dNO

x)kg

C2H4eq

kWh

Water

ecotox

icity

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

potential

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

21M

arineec

otox

icity

potential

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

Land

usean

dqu

ality

22T

errestria

leco

toxicity

potential

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

23L

andoc

cupa

tion(areaoc

cupied

over

time)

m2yrkWh

24G

reen

fieldland

use(propo

rtionof

new

deve

lopm

enton

prev

ious

lyun

deve

lope

dland

relativ

eto

total

land

occu

pied

)Perce

ntag

e(

)

Soc

ial

Provision

ofem

ploy

men

t25

Dire

ctem

ploy

men

tPerso

n-ye

arsGWh

26T

otal

employ

men

t(dire

ct+indirect)

Perso

n-ye

arsGWh

Hum

anhe

alth

impa

cts

27W

orke

rinjurie

sNo

ofinjurie

sGWh

28H

uman

toxicity

potential(ex

clud

ingradiation)

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

29W

orke

rhu

man

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation

DALY

bGWh

30T

otal

human

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(w

orke

rsan

dpo

pulatio

n)DALY

bGWh

Largeaccide

ntris

k31

Fatalities

dueto

largeaccide

nts

No

offatalitiesGWh

Localc

ommun

ityim

pacts

32P

ropo

rtionof

staffhiredfrom

localc

ommun

ityrelativ

eto

totald

irect

employ

men

tPerce

ntag

e(

)33

Spe

ndingon

locals

uppliers

relativ

eto

totala

nnua

lspe

nding

Perce

ntag

e(

)34

Dire

ctinve

stmen

tin

localc

ommun

ityas

prop

ortio

nof

totala

nnua

lprofits

Perce

ntag

e(

)

(Con

tinue

s)




















TableI

(Con

tinue

d)

Sus

tainab

ility

issu

eIndicator

Unit

Hum

anrig

htsan

dco

rrup

tion

35Inv

olve

men

tof

coun

triesin

thelifecyclewith

know

nco

rrup

tionprob

lems(based

onTran

sparen

cyInternationa

lCorruptionPerce

ptions

Inde

x)Sco

re(0ndash10

)

Ene

rgyse

curity

36A

mou

ntof

impo

rted

fossilfuel

potentially

avoide

dtoekW

h37

Diversity

offuel

supp

lymix

Sco

re(0ndash1)

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(ene

rgyde

nsity

)GJm

3

Nuc

lear

prolife

ratio

n39

Use

ofno

n-en

riche

duran

ium

inareactorcapa

bleof

onlinerefuelling

useof

reproc

essing

req

uiremen

tforen

riche

duran

ium

Sco

re(0ndash3)

Intergen

erationa

lequ

ity40

Use

ofab

iotic

reso

urce

s(elemen

ts)

kgSbeq

kWh

41U

seof

abiotic

reso

urce

s(fo

ssilfuels)

MJkW

h42

Volum

eof

radioa

ctivewaste

tobe

stored

m3kWh

43V

olum

eof

liquidCO

2to

bestored

m3kWh



lifeyears









CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Ramp-up rate(min)


Ramp-down rate(min)








Coal

Gas

Fuel fabrication


Waste Disposal

Construction

Decommissioning

MOX fabrication



OperationWaste

Disposal

Construction

Decommissioning

Mining


Operation

Construction

Decommissioning

LNG

Liquefaction

Regasification


Mining ampmilling


Raw materials

WindPV





















CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Wind(offshore)

Solar(PV)



Thermochemical H2



20 20 10 0 0


889 16 167 0 0

















































































































































3- eqkWh









2856 5937















































050

055

060

065

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Div

ersi

ty o

f su

pp

ly











4 CONCLUSIONS












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES

















































































































































TableI

Sum

maryof

theindicators

used

forasse

ssingthesu

staina

bilityof

elec

tricity

optio

ns[5]

Sus

tainab

ility

issu

eIndicator

Unit

Tech

no-eco

nomic

Ope

rability

1Cap

acity

factor

(pow

erou

tput

asape

rcen

tage

ofthemaxim

umpo

ssible

output)

Perce

ntag

e(

)2

Availabilityfactor

(perce

ntag

eof

timeaplan

tis

availableto

prod

uceelec

tricity

)Perce

ntag

e(

)3

Tech

nicald

ispa

tcha

bility(ra

mp-up

rateram

p-do

wnratem

inim

umup

time

minim

umdo

wntim

e)Sum

med

rank

4Eco

nomic

disp

atch

ability

(ratio

ofcapitalc

ostto

totallev

elised

gene

ratio

nco

st)

Dim

ension

less

5Lifetim

eof

glob

alfuel

rese

rves

atcu

rren

tex

tractio

nrates

Yea

rsTe

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce6

Ratio

ofplan

tflex

ibility

(abilityfortrigen

eration

nega

tiveGWPan

dor

H2prod

uctio

n)an

dop

erationa

llife

time

Yea

rs1

Immed

iacy

7Timeto

plan

tstart-u

pfrom

startof

cons

truc

tion

Yea

rsLe

velised

cost

ofge

neratio

n8

Cap

italc

osts

Pen

cekWh

9Ope

ratio

nan

dmainten

ance

costs

Pen

cekWh

10F

uelc

osts

Pen

cekWh

11T

otal

leve

lised

cost

Pen

cekWh

Cos

tvaria

bility

12F

uelp

ricese

nsitivity

(ratio

offuel

cost

tototallev

elised

gene

ratio

nco

st)

Dim

ension

less

Fina

ncialinc

entiv

es13

Finan

cial

ince

ntives

andassistan

ce(egR

OCs

taxp

ayer

burden

s)Pen

cekWh

Env

ironm

ental

Materialrec

yclability

14R

ecyclabilityof

inpu

tmaterials

Perce

ntag

e(

)Globa

lwarming

15G

loba

lwarmingpo

tential(GHG

emission

s)kg

CO

2eq

kWh

Ozone

laye

rde

pletion

16O

zone

depletionpo

tential(CFC

andha

loge

natedHCem

ission

s)kg

CFC

-11eq

kWh

Acidificatio

n17

Acidificatio

npo

tential(SO

2N

OxHCla

ndNH3em

ission

s)kg

SO

2eq

kWh

Eutroph

ication

18E

utroph

icationpo

tential(NN

OxNH4+P

O43etc)

kgPO

43eq

kWh

Pho

toch

emical

smog

19P

hotoch

emical

oxidan

tcrea

tionpo

tential(VOCsan

dNO

x)kg

C2H4eq

kWh

Water

ecotox

icity

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

potential

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

21M

arineec

otox

icity

potential

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

Land

usean

dqu

ality

22T

errestria

leco

toxicity

potential

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

23L

andoc

cupa

tion(areaoc

cupied

over

time)

m2yrkWh

24G

reen

fieldland

use(propo

rtionof

new

deve

lopm

enton

prev

ious

lyun

deve

lope

dland

relativ

eto

total

land

occu

pied

)Perce

ntag

e(

)

Soc

ial

Provision

ofem

ploy

men

t25

Dire

ctem

ploy

men

tPerso

n-ye

arsGWh

26T

otal

employ

men

t(dire

ct+indirect)

Perso

n-ye

arsGWh

Hum

anhe

alth

impa

cts

27W

orke

rinjurie

sNo

ofinjurie

sGWh

28H

uman

toxicity

potential(ex

clud

ingradiation)

kg14DCBaeq

kWh

29W

orke

rhu

man

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation

DALY

bGWh

30T

otal

human

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(w

orke

rsan

dpo

pulatio

n)DALY

bGWh

Largeaccide

ntris

k31

Fatalities

dueto

largeaccide

nts

No

offatalitiesGWh

Localc

ommun

ityim

pacts

32P

ropo

rtionof

staffhiredfrom

localc

ommun

ityrelativ

eto

totald

irect

employ

men

tPerce

ntag

e(

)33

Spe

ndingon

locals

uppliers

relativ

eto

totala

nnua

lspe

nding

Perce

ntag

e(

)34

Dire

ctinve

stmen

tin

localc

ommun

ityas

prop

ortio

nof

totala

nnua

lprofits

Perce

ntag

e(

)

(Con

tinue

s)




















TableI

(Con

tinue

d)

Sus

tainab

ility

issu

eIndicator

Unit

Hum

anrig

htsan

dco

rrup

tion

35Inv

olve

men

tof

coun

triesin

thelifecyclewith

know

nco

rrup

tionprob

lems(based

onTran

sparen

cyInternationa

lCorruptionPerce

ptions

Inde

x)Sco

re(0ndash10

)

Ene

rgyse

curity

36A

mou

ntof

impo

rted

fossilfuel

potentially

avoide

dtoekW

h37

Diversity

offuel

supp

lymix

Sco

re(0ndash1)

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(ene

rgyde

nsity

)GJm

3

Nuc

lear

prolife

ratio

n39

Use

ofno

n-en

riche

duran

ium

inareactorcapa

bleof

onlinerefuelling

useof

reproc

essing

req

uiremen

tforen

riche

duran

ium

Sco

re(0ndash3)

Intergen

erationa

lequ

ity40

Use

ofab

iotic

reso

urce

s(elemen

ts)

kgSbeq

kWh

41U

seof

abiotic

reso

urce

s(fo

ssilfuels)

MJkW

h42

Volum

eof

radioa

ctivewaste

tobe

stored

m3kWh

43V

olum

eof

liquidCO

2to

bestored

m3kWh



lifeyears









CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Ramp-up rate(min)


Ramp-down rate(min)








Coal

Gas

Fuel fabrication


Waste Disposal

Construction

Decommissioning

MOX fabrication



OperationWaste

Disposal

Construction

Decommissioning

Mining


Operation

Construction

Decommissioning

LNG

Liquefaction

Regasification


Mining ampmilling


Raw materials

WindPV





















CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Wind(offshore)

Solar(PV)



Thermochemical H2



20 20 10 0 0


889 16 167 0 0

















































































































































3- eqkWh









2856 5937















































050

055

060

065

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Div

ersi

ty o

f su

pp

ly











4 CONCLUSIONS












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES

















































































































































TableI

(Con

tinue

d)

Sus

tainab

ility

issu

eIndicator

Unit

Hum

anrig

htsan

dco

rrup

tion

35Inv

olve

men

tof

coun

triesin

thelifecyclewith

know

nco

rrup

tionprob

lems(based

onTran

sparen

cyInternationa

lCorruptionPerce

ptions

Inde

x)Sco

re(0ndash10

)

Ene

rgyse

curity

36A

mou

ntof

impo

rted

fossilfuel

potentially

avoide

dtoekW

h37

Diversity

offuel

supp

lymix

Sco

re(0ndash1)

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(ene

rgyde

nsity

)GJm

3

Nuc

lear

prolife

ratio

n39

Use

ofno

n-en

riche

duran

ium

inareactorcapa

bleof

onlinerefuelling

useof

reproc

essing

req

uiremen

tforen

riche

duran

ium

Sco

re(0ndash3)

Intergen

erationa

lequ

ity40

Use

ofab

iotic

reso

urce

s(elemen

ts)

kgSbeq

kWh

41U

seof

abiotic

reso

urce

s(fo

ssilfuels)

MJkW

h42

Volum

eof

radioa

ctivewaste

tobe

stored

m3kWh

43V

olum

eof

liquidCO

2to

bestored

m3kWh



lifeyears









CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Ramp-up rate(min)


Ramp-down rate(min)








Coal

Gas

Fuel fabrication


Waste Disposal

Construction

Decommissioning

MOX fabrication



OperationWaste

Disposal

Construction

Decommissioning

Mining


Operation

Construction

Decommissioning

LNG

Liquefaction

Regasification


Mining ampmilling


Raw materials

WindPV





















CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Wind(offshore)

Solar(PV)



Thermochemical H2



20 20 10 0 0


889 16 167 0 0

















































































































































3- eqkWh









2856 5937















































050

055

060

065

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Div

ersi

ty o

f su

pp

ly











4 CONCLUSIONS












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES






































































































































CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Ramp-up rate(min)


Ramp-down rate(min)








Coal

Gas

Fuel fabrication


Waste Disposal

Construction

Decommissioning

MOX fabrication



OperationWaste

Disposal

Construction

Decommissioning

Mining


Operation

Construction

Decommissioning

LNG

Liquefaction

Regasification


Mining ampmilling


Raw materials

WindPV





















CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Wind(offshore)

Solar(PV)



Thermochemical H2



20 20 10 0 0


889 16 167 0 0

















































































































































3- eqkWh









2856 5937















































050

055

060

065

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Div

ersi

ty o

f su

pp

ly











4 CONCLUSIONS












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES

















































































































































CoalGas

(CCGT)Nuclear(PWR)

Wind(offshore)

Solar(PV)



Thermochemical H2



20 20 10 0 0


889 16 167 0 0

















































































































































3- eqkWh









2856 5937















































050

055

060

065

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Div

ersi

ty o

f su

pp

ly











4 CONCLUSIONS












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES













































































































































































































































































3- eqkWh









2856 5937















































050

055

060

065

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Div

ersi

ty o

f su

pp

ly











4 CONCLUSIONS












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES










































































































































































050

055

060

065

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Div

ersi

ty o

f su

pp

ly











4 CONCLUSIONS












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES







































































































































4 CONCLUSIONS












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES






































































































































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES
































































































































TableVIII

Tech

no-eco

nomic

sustaina

bilityindicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

1Cap

acity

factor

()

4976

6232

7290

6250

6280

7100

4940

8500

9000

2560

3000

4000

400

860

1084

2Availabilityfactor

()

8710

9070

8870

5067

8921

9270

6700

8140

9800

9590

10000

3Te

chno

logicalloc

k-in

resistan

ce(yea

rs-1)

889

1600

167

000

000

4Lifetim

eof

fuel

rese

rves

(yea

rs)

6100

11900

2184

00

4500

6280

25000

2500

8000

67500

11

11

11

5Te

chnicald

ispa

tch

(noun

its)

400

467

600

600

767

900

1100

1167

1200

1600

1600

6Eco

nomic

disp

atch

(no

units

)38

20

5689

8299

1689

1705

1887

5423

7928

8393

6057

7488

9897

5169

9359

15867

7Timeto

start-u

p(m

onths)

4800

5600

7200

3600

3750

4200

5600

6800

9000

400

1280

2000

010

900

8Fu

elpricese

nsitivity

()

1748

2703

3282

3866

7382

10107

444

560

666

000

000

000

000

000

000

9Le

velised

costc

apita

l(poundMWh)

2840

4230

6170

1110

1120

1240

5130

7500

7940

8850

10940

14460

15610

28262

47912

10L

evelised

costO

andM

(poundM

Wh)

1070

1195

1310

600

600

600

1090

1430

1430

2300

3670

4580

312

1935

4421

11L

evelised

costfue

l(poundMWh)

1300

2010

2440

2540

4850

6640

420

530

630

000

000

000

000

000

000

12L

evelised

costT

OTA

L(poundM

Wh)

5260

7435

9500

4250

6570

8360

6680

9460

9900

11150

14610

19050

18170

30196

51031

13F

inan

cial

ince

ntives

(poundM

Wh)

000

000

508

8246

40550

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics

APPENDIX

A

Sustainab

ilityindicat

ors

fordiffe

rentelec

tricityoptions



TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES
































































































































TableIX

Env

ironm

entals

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

14R

ecyclability(ra

tio)

777

E-01

843

E-01

843

E-01

794

E-01

893

E-01

893

E-01

733

E-01

812

E-01

812

E-01

803

E-01

994

E-01

994

E-01

238

E-01

998

E-01

998

E-01

15G

loba

lwarming

(kgCO

2eq

kWh)

965

E-01

107

E+00

148

E+00

366

E-01

379

E-01

496

E-01

513

E-03

624

E-03

131

E-02

473

E-03

112

E-02

142

E-02

648

E-02

878

E-02

126

E-01

16O

zone

depletion

(kgCFC

-11eq

kWh)

320

E-09

425

E-09

105

E-08

280

E-09

127

E-08

138

E-08

526

E-10

541

E-10

728

E-08

255

E-10

596

E-10

852

E-10

334

E-09

175

E-08

252

E-08

17A

cidificatio

n(kgSO

2eq

kWh)

166

E-03

178

E-03

980

E-03

122

E-04

148

E-04

370

E-04

376

E-05

440

E-05

934

E-05

335

E-05

829

E-05

841

E-05

316

E-04

436

E-04

618

E-04

18E

utroph

ication

(kgPO

43eq

kWh)

141

E-04

215

E-04

224

E-03

600

E-05

623

E-05

711

E-05

642

E-06

132

E-05

223

E-05

205

E-05

601

E-05

601

E-05

381

E-05

687

E-05

104

E-04

19P

hotoch

emical

smog

(kgC2H4eq

kWh)

133

E-04

140

E-04

457

E-04

231

E-05

273

E-05

630

E-05

450

E-06

496

E-06

808

E-06

347

E-06

849

E-06

981

E-06

339

E-05

672

E-05

927

E-05

20F

resh

water

ecotox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

527

E-03

167

E-02

399

E-01

172

E-03

257

E-03

773

E-03

383

E-03

211

E-02

258

E-02

868

E-03

214

E-02

214

E-02

732

E-03

174

E-02

252

E-02

21M

arineec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

566

E+02

578

E+02

224

E+03

360

E+00

708

E+00

307

E+01

668

E+00

402

E+01

561

E+01

183

E+01

464

E+01

464

E+01

404

E+01

876

E+01

122

E+02

22T

errestria

lec

otox

icity

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

613

E-04

153

E-03

178

E-03

116

E-04

158

E-04

531

E-04

284

E-04

740

E-04

877

E-04

633

E-04

143

E-03

193

E-03

560

E-04

944

E-04

133

E-03

23L

andoc

cupa

tion

(m2yr)

207

E-02

273

E-02

404

E-02

276

E-04

633

E-04

379

E-03

528

E-04

549

E-04

771

E-04

156

E-04

374

E-04

461

E-04

314

E-03

497

E-03

682

E-03

24G

reen

fieldland

use

(ratio

)167

E-01

000

E+00

875

E-01

000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRp

ressurised

water




TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES
































































































































TableX

Soc

ials

ustainab

ility

indicators

Coa

l(pu

lverised

)Gas

(CCGT)

Nuc

lear

(PWR)

Wind(offsh

ore)

Solar

(PV)

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

Min

Cen

tral

Max

25E

mploy

men

tdirect

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)556

E+01

266

E+01

559

E+01

311

E+02

537

E+02

26E

mploy

men

ttotal

(perso

n-ye

arsTW

h)191

E+02

624

E+01

808

E+01

368

E+02

653

E+02

27W

orke

rinjurie

s(in

jurie

sTW

h)450

E+00

541

E-01

591

E-01

230

E+00

484

E+00

28H

uman

toxicity

potential

(kgDCBeq

kWh)

728

E-02

777

E-02

458

E-01

368

E-03

544

E-03

141

E-02

135

E-02

115

E-01

135

E-01

303

E-

02736

E-02

752

E-

02357

E-

02844

E-02

115

E-01

30T

otal

health

impa

ctsfrom

radiation(DALY

kWh)

215

E-10

710

E-10

221

E-09

116

E-11

263

E-10

253

E-09

203

E-08

203

E-08

319

E-08

186

E-11

431

E-11

666

E-

11113

E-09

199

E-09

288

E-09

31L

arge

accide

ntfatalities

(fatalitiesPWh)

207

E+01

508

E+00

122

E-03

772

E-01

114

E+00

36F

ossilfue

lavo

ided

(toekW

h)000

E+00

000

E+00

200

E-04

200

E-04

200

E-04

37D

iversity

offuel

supp

ly(

)720

E-01

838

E-01

861

E-01

11

38F

uels

torage

capa

bilities(GJm

3)

212

E+01

358

E-02

104

E+07

000

E+00

000

E+00

39N

uclear

prolife

ratio

n(ordinal

scale)

000

E+00

000

E+00

330

E+01

000

E+00

000

E+00

40D

epletio

nof

elem

ents

(kgSbeq

kWh)

811

E-08

972

E-08

350

E-07

182

E-08

283

E-08

806

E-08

434

E-08

474

E-08

621

E-08

296

E-07

839

E-07

839

E-

07480

E-06

123

E-

05751

E-05

41D

epletio

nof

fossilfuels

(MJkW

h)118

E+01

151

E+

01247

E+01

566

E+

00575

E+

00651

E+00

662

E-02

807

E-02

151

E-01

574

E-02

137

E-01

174

E-01

815

E-

01109

E+00

158

E+00

42R

adwaste

forge

olog

ical

storag

e(m

3TWh)

000

E+00

000

E+00

913

E+

00102

E+

01112

E+

01000

E+00

000

E+00

CCGTcom


PWRpressurisedwater

reactorPVp

hotovoltaics



REFERENCES
































































































































REFERENCES
































































































































life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the uk

Documents