Izvestia Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zawedeniy. Yadernaya Energetika

The peer-reviewed scientific and technology journal. ISSN: 0204-3327

Criteria of return on investment in nuclear energy

6/21/2017 2017 - #02 Environmental aspects

Kharitonov V.V. Kosterin N.N.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26583/npe.2017.2.15

UDC: 330.322.5: 338.5, 621.039.5

For the first time, analytical relationships have been defined between the investment performance criteria (Net Present Value (NPV), Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), internal rate of return (IRR), discounted payback period (TC), and discounted costs (Z)) and basic engineeringeconomic parameters of nuclear reactors (capital costs K, annual operating costs Y, annual revenue R, NPP construction TC and operation TE periods), characterizing the NPP profitability and competitiveness at the microeconomic level.

The power function of discounted cash flows was used in calculations. It is shown that the joint analysis of the entire set of investment efficiency criteria (not only LCOE as it often occurs) can help avoid contradictions in assessing the NPP project profitability and formulate optimal requirements for reactor engineering and economic parameters. The obtained analytical expressions provide solutions not only to the traditional «direct problem» (to assess projected performance criteria for capital and operating costs and profit stream) but, equally important, to solve the «inverse problem»: based on the desired values of efficiency criteria, to assess restrictions on capital and operating costs, i.e. identify «investment corridors».

Due to the natural uncertainty in long-term cash flow forecasting during the NPP construction and operation, to assess the efficiency of investments, the investment risk assessment results are presented by means of the Monte-Carlo method. The calculation results of probability distributions of the investment efficiency (profitability) criteria are presented for the specified ranges of the forecasting cash flow uncertainty. It is shown that the project unprofitability risk can be quite high. To reduce investment risks, it is necessary to justify the changes in basic reactor parameters (decrease in K, Y, TC and increase in R and TE) and uncertainty ranges in the initial data.


  1. Kharitonov V.V. Dynamic of nuclear energy development. Economic models. Moscow. MEPhI Publ., 2014. 328 р. (in Russian).
  2. The Generation IV International Forum. Available at https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_9260/public (accessed 25.03.2017).
  3. Nuclear Power Engineering. Problems. Solutions. / Ed. by M.N. Strikhanov. Part 1. Moscow. CSPiM Publ., 2011. 424 p. (in Russian).
  4. Mesoeconomy of Development. Ed. by G.B. Kleiner. Moscow. Nauka Publ., 2011. 805 p. (in Russian).
  5. Chernyakhovskaya Y.V. Integrated Sales of Nuclear Power Plants: how it works? Report Jul 8 2016 in «Kurchatovsky Institute». Available at http://www.nrcki.ru/pages/main/5509/5566/7513/index.shtml (in Russian).
  6. Economic Evaluation of Bids for Nuclear Power Plants. 1999 Ed. Techn. Rep. Ser. No. 396, IAEA, Vienna, 2000. 224 p.
  7. Cost estimating guidelines for generation IV nuclear energy systems. GIF/EMWG/2007/ 004. Revision 4.2. September 26, 2007. 181 p.
  8. INPRO Methodology for Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems: Economics. INPRO Manual. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-4.4. IAEA, Vienna, 2014. 92 p.
  9. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. 2015 Ed. International Energy Agency (IEA), Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). OECD, 2015. 212 p.
  10. Danilova T. Economics of NPP: focus on kWh. Atomnyj ekspert, 2014, no. 5-6 (26-27), pр.9-15 (in Russian).
  11. Economic analysis for the Paksh II nuclear power project. A rational investment case for Hungarian State resources. Available at http://www.kormany.hu/download/a/84/90000/2015%20Economic%20 analysis%20of%20Paks%20II.pdf (accessed 09.2015).
  12. Mari Carlo. The costs of generating electricity and the competitiveness of nuclear power. Progress in Nuclear Energy. 2014, v. 73, pр. 153-161.
  13. Kharitonov V.V., Molokanov N.A. Analytical model of the strategy of nuclear energy self-development (part 1). Economicheskie strategii. 2012, no. 5, рр. 6-16 (in Russian).
  14. Kharitonov V.V., Molokanov N.A. Analytical model of the strategy of nuclear energy self-development (part 2). Economicheskie strategii. 2012, no. 6-7, рр. 94-107 (in Russian).
  15. Kharitonov V.V., Molokanov N.A. Analytical model of the project investment efficiency in energy. Economicheskij analiz: theoriya i praktika. 2013, v. 319, no. 16, pр. 38-51 (in Russian).
  16. Kharitonov V.V., Kurelchuk U.N.Analytical evaluation of investment efficiency in mining project. Gornyj zhurnal. 2014, no. 9, pр. 100-106 (in Russian).
  17. Berens W. Hawranek, Peter M. Manual for the preparation of industrial feasibility studies. Vienna: UNIDO, 1991. 386 р.
  18. Vilenskyi P.L., Lifshits V.N., Smolyak S.A. The calculation of the project investment efficiency. Theory and practice. Moscow. Delo. Academiya Narodnogo Khozyajstva Publ., 2008. 1104 p. (in Russian)
  19. Nuclear New Build: Insights into Financing and Project Management. Nuclear Energy Agency, 2015. 248 p. Available at https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7195-nn-build-2015.pdf.
  20. Lovering Jessica R., Yip Arthur, Nordhaus Ted. Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors. Energy Policy. 2016, no. 91, рр. 371-382.
  21. Klimenko A.V. Whether there can be a nuclear power to competitive energy in the free market. Izvestiya vuzov. Yadernaya Energetika. 2013, no. 4, pp. 17-28 (in Russian).
  22. Karhov F.N. Development prospects of nuclear energy in market conditions. Problemy prognozirovaniya. 2014, no. 4, pр.26-37 (in Russian).

investment efficiency criteria nuclear energy nuclear power reactor capital and operating costs revenues discount rate NPP competitiveness Monte Carlo method