Table 4.13 Base Capital Structure and Economic Assumptions Variations in base capital structure and interest rates were examined as part of the analysis. Reasonable variations did not significantly affect the relative ranking or cost differential of technologies.* No investment tax credits were applied in this analysis because these politically determined incentives have had a history of frequent change. Current regulations are considered to be applicable only to the analysis of near-term projects. Table 4.14 reports the levelized energy cost for the two SPS reference designs and the six alternative central station systems. These energy costs were calculated by using the capital cost ranges reported in Sec. 4.2.2, the fuel prices generated by the alternative futures scenarios, and the cost characterization information reported in Sec. 3.3. Figures 4.15-4.17 display the cost ranges for each of the scenarios for the six technologies and two SPS reference designs. Some sensitivity calculations using these numbers as a basis are described in the next section. 4.2.5 Cost Sensitivity Analysis Several cost assumptions were made in the comparisons presented in the previous section, and a few of these assumptions were tested to determine their effect on the cost comparisons. The first sensitivity analysis was made on the plant capacity factors. Baseline capacity factors for the technologies were: SPS, 90%; LWR, LMFBR, and coal, 70%; fusion, 70%; and TPV, 25%. The relationship between capacity factor and energy costs is shown in Fig. 4.18, in which energy costs are plotted for the constrained scenario and nominal cost values. Generally speaking, the more capital-intensive the technology, the more sensitive it is to the capacity factor. The TPV curve is steeper than the others, mainly due to the fact that the scaling for this technology is much smaller and therefore the incremental change in capacity factor is much larger. *These variations included higher real interest and return rates of 5%, 5.5% and 10.2% for bonds, preferred stock and common stock, respectively. Debt to equity ratio variation was also examined at 70% bonds, 20% common stock, and 10% preferred stock to bracket most utility financial configurations considered reasonable.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==