PCGE presents no data on the costs of carbon storage (‘sequestration’) probably because it is common practice for CO2 to be sold to the petroleum industry, which pumps it into wells to improve oil recovery. While it may seem strange that one is simultaneously acting to both reduce CO2 emissions and to increase them (by producing more oil) there is no doubt that there is a net benefit in terms of emissions. This practice means that, at the present time, carbon dioxide sequestration is essentially free. If carbon capture becomes widespread, however, and especially when it is deployed in regions where no use can be found for it, this may no longer be the case. This may represent a hidden bias in the calculation in favour of coal+CC.

First of a kind (FOAK) and Nth of a kind (NOAK) technology

The PCGE data do not distinguish between FOAK and NOAK technology. Where FOAK plants can be inferred (e. g. advanced reactor designs, supercritical coal combustion, etc.) there is often no obvious difference in overnight cost between these and more standard technology. Nevertheless, it is clear that considerable cost savings can be made from replication. A report for the UK government by Mott MacDonald indicates a reduction in costs of between 20 and 40% in moving from FOAK to NOAK. These savings result from removal of the FOAK premium and reductions in the supply chain cost, contingencies and unscheduled over-runs. This report provides a ‘headline’ figure (i. e. without contingency) for engineering procurement and construction for a FOAK plant of $4750 per kWh(e). After removing the 15% contingency that is included in the nuclear overnight cost shown in Table 5.1, this suggests that, when applied to Europe and North America, the value used here probably lies somewhere between NOAK and FOAK.