“The New Power Plan presented in this report
is work in progress. It is not a definitive
alternative to the IRP 2010. The preferred
power generation options shown are outputs
of the TIMES model and are obviously highly
dependent on input parameters and assumptions. We have accordingly also
modelled alternative scenarios with higher
demand, lower nuclear costs, more optimistic
cost improvements of renewables, with and
without shale gas, and with/without the
2012 ministerial determinations and an RE
program with sustained annual investments.
The New Power Plan presented in this analysis
shows the impact of changing demand assumptions in accordance with the lower demand seen today compared to that of the
IRP 2010. New information on the costs and
electricity generating options are becoming
available and indicate that RE costs and
nuclear costs are higher, and the role which
shale gas could play should it become available at costs competitive with LNG. The
analysis performed clearly shows the importance of updating the IRP2010. Ignoring
this new information and fixing decisions,
including a large nuclear roll-out of large
units, on an out-dated plan is going to be very costly to the economy. The analysis
also shows that even with a higher demand,
and lower nuclear costs, new capacity in
nuclear is only required in 2029 and not
in 2023 as per IRP 2010.”
