difference between the SPS and the other alternatives if fuel cost and this is clearly a large margin. SPS costs would have to be increased by $100B (over the value shown in Figure 3) before the option is clearly not competitive with the given nuclear power cost projection. A more graphic comparison of SPS economics is Figure 4. This figure illustrates the revenue that a utility may collect if allowed by a regulatory body to earn a $14.5% ROI. The revenue that must be provided by the utilities customers to operate a cola plant remains at around $4B per year (or about 10$ per kilowatt hour) over the plants entire assumed 40-year life (capital related costs decline as the plant ages, but fuel costs rise slowly and offsets all the decline because the real cost of coal is expected to rise as the most readily available supplies are depleted). SPS costs, on the other hand, decline because capital related costs dominate. In actual service SPS installations may be longer lived than the 40 years assumed in Figure 3. Lifetimes of 75 to 150 years have been postulated as possible by some. If SPS systems are long lived then their economic advantage over coal-fired electrical generation decreases substantially. In Figure 4 is such a comparison. The revenue required by each, if a 100 year lifetime for an SPS installation is assumed, is illustrated. In the last sixty years of operation SPS installations would require between $2B and $0.5B per year to operate while the coal plant requirements range between $8B and $14B per year. Figure 3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==