发表机构
University of Colorado Boulder（科罗拉多大学博尔德分校）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
该研究通过灵活运营模型分析SMRs在电力市场中的经济可行性，发现高边际成本抵消投资成本降低，需超常价格补贴，且边际成本削减比投资成本削减更关键。
AI 中文摘要
随着美国电力市场对可靠发电的需求日益增长，核工业提出了小型模块化反应堆（SMRs）。然而，鉴于运营实例的缺乏，这些概念在快速演变的电网中表现如何尚不清楚。现有文献基于传统核电站成本大幅上升的事实，聚焦于SMRs为实现私人投资可行性所需的投资成本。然而，本研究发现，在市场环境中，SMRs的运营成本和边际成本对经济可行性更为关键。本研究采用灵活运营模型调度SMRs，考虑来自两个主要电力市场（容量市场和批发能源市场）的收入，并分别在有政策支持和无政策支持的情况下进行分析。使用制造商公布的投资和运营成本，燃料成本则根据制造商提供的设计参数计算。结果表明，SMRs不经济的主要原因是投资成本的降低被边际成本的增加所抵消。因此，需要超出历史常态的价格和补贴环境，才能以制造商公布的基准成本吸引私人投资。当前SMRs的盈利能力与AP1000传统核反应堆的先进估计相当；若投资成本按核电项目平均速率上升，则与Vogtle 3号和4号机组类似。在预期的未来电力市场中，边际成本的降低可能比投资成本的降低更为有利。
英文摘要
As US power markets contend with growing demand for firm generation, the nuclear industry has offered Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). However, how these concepts would fare in a rapidly evolving power grid is unclear, given the paucity of operational examples. Current literature, informed by substantial cost escalations for traditional nuclear plants, focuses on the investment costs SMRs need to achieve for private investment feasibility. However, this work finds that the operating and marginal costs of SMRs are more critical to economic feasibility in market environments. This work dispatches SMRs using a flexible operations model, considering revenue from two main electric markets, capacity and wholesale energy markets, with and without policy support. Manufacturer advertised costs for investment and operating costs are used, with fuel costs calculated from manufacturer provided design parameters. Results indicate that SMRs are uneconomical primarily because investment cost reductions are offset by increased marginal costs. As such, an environment of prices and subsidies beyond historic norms are necessary to attract private investment at manufacturer advertised cost benchmarks. Current SMRs are as profitable as advanced estimates of the AP1000 traditional nuclear reactor, and if investment costs escalate at the average rate for nuclear projects, they are similar to Vogtle 3 & 4. In projected future power markets, reductions in marginal cost may be more beneficial than those in investment costs.
