ized cost of additional nuclear capacity, but raises the
levelized cost of coal to $0.083/kWh and natural gas
to $0.074/kWh (Deutch et al. 2009, 6). If one or more
of these three considerations is realized (40+20 year
nuclear operating license; no capital risk premium;
$25/ton CO 2 emission charge), then the levelized cost
for new nuclear capacity could equal or be less than
that for coal or gas fired plants. The 2009 MIT study
summarizes its economic analysis as:
The 2003 report found that “In deregulated markets,
nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal
and natural gas. However, plausible reductions by
industry in capital cost, operation and maintenance
costs and construction time could reduce the gap. Car-
bon emission credits, if enacted by government, can
give nuclear power a cost advantage.” The situation
remains the same today. While the U.S. nuclear indus-
try has continued to demonstrate improved operating
performance, there remains significant uncertainty
about the capital costs, and the cost of its financing,
which are the main components of the cost of electric-
ity from new nuclear plants (Deutch et al. 2009, 6).Nuclear energy is currently the leading source of
U.S. clean energy, providing more than twice the en-
ergy supplied by hydroelectric power, solar power,
and wind power combined (Newell 2010). The MIT
analysis is a clear indicator of the significance the in-
clusion of consideration for CO 2 emission can have on
the economic analysis. Whether instituted in terms of
a carbon tax or as a cap-and-trade program, such an
initiative will change the market forces at work. The
CES addresses a fundamental tenet of the Blueprint
for a Secure Energy Future, greatly increasing the per-
centages of clean energy sources in the United States.
The CES would essentially establish a cap-and-trade