Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22

List of parameters of each power source

Contaents
Parameters of each power source and information for reference .....................................................................1
1. Nuclear power generation .....................................................................................................................................1
2. Coal fired power generation ..................................................................................................................................3
3. LNG fired power generation ..................................................................................................................................4
4. Oil fired power generation .....................................................................................................................................6
5 (1) Onshore wind power generation .......................................................................................................................7
5 (2) Offshore wind power generation .......................................................................................................................8
6. Geothermal power generation ...............................................................................................................................9
7 (1) Solar power generation (for houses) ..............................................................................................................10
7 (2) Solar power generation (mega solar power generation) ................................................................................ 11
8 (1) General hydroelectric power generation .........................................................................................................12
8 (2) Small hydroelectric power generation.............................................................................................................13
9 (1) Biomass power generation (wood mono fired) ...............................................................................................14
9 (2) Biomass power generation (coal mixed fired) ................................................................................................15
10 (1) Gas cogeneration ..........................................................................................................................................16
10 (2) Oil cogeneration ............................................................................................................................................18
11. Fuel cell ..............................................................................................................................................................20
Parameters of each power source and information for reference

1. Nuclear power generation


Data of the power plants (4 sample plants) that have operated for the latest 10 years; interviews with
related business operators.
* Sample plants (Name, rated output, operation start year)
Base of parameters Higashidori No.1, Tohoku Electric Power Company: 1.10 M kW, 2005
Hamaoka No.5, Chubu Electric Power Company: 1.38 M kW, 2005
Shiga No.2, Hokuriku Electric Power Company: 1.358 M kW, 2006
Tomari No.3, Hokkaido Electric Power Company: 0.912 M kW, 2009
Scale (output) of
1.20M kW Average of the sample plant outputs
a model plant
〇80 % 〇70 %
Facility utilization factor Multiple conditions are set for comparison.
〇60 %
40 years or 60 years are set in accordance with “Operation Period Extension
〇60 years
Number of operation years Approval System” stated in the Law for the Regulations of Nuclear Source
〇40 years
Material.
Construction costs of a power plant. For the model plant, considering the case
that multiple plants are constructed at one site, the cost of common equipment
Construction cost 370K yen/kW is averaged and the expenses for commodities are corrected. However the
Capital cost

additional safety measures cost based on the Great East Japan Earthquake are
not included. Average of the sample plants
Fixed asset tax 1.4 %
This is the sample plants' per-kW average of the newest total estimate for the
Facility-scrapping
71.6B yen dismantlement reserve for a nuclear power plant, multiplied by the model plant
cost
output,
Labor cost necessary to operate the power plant. Salaries, welfare expenses,
Labor cost 2.05B yen/year
Operation and maintenance

and severance benefits are included. Average of the sample plants


2.2 %/year Inspection and maintenance expenses necessary to keep the equipment
Repair cost (Proportion in the necessary to generate power in normal operation condition, accounted as the
construction cost) average through certain operation years: average of the sample plants
costs

Waste disposal expenses, consumable expenses, rental expenses, commission


Incidental expenses 8.44B yen/year expenses, non-life insurance premium, miscellaneous pays, and nuclear fuel
tax: average of the sample plants
Assigned work cost 13.4 %/year Expenses related in general to the electric power business (labor cost, repair
(general (Proportion in the expenses, and incidental expenses of head office) are distributed as expenses
administrative cost) direct cost) necessary for the relevant electric utility industry. Average of the sample plants.
Provisional calculations are performed using the model (current model) by
Nuclear fuel cycle considering the current situation that the reprocessing is performed while all
cost (front-end + 1.54 yen/kWh spent nuclear fuel volumes are stored for an appropriate period of time.
Fuel cost

back-end costs) Changes in circumstances after 2011 are reflected on this provisional
calculations.
Heat efficiency 34.7 % Value at the generating end. Average of the sample plants
In-plant power A ratio of the electric energy used in the power plant to the generated electric
4.0 %
consumption rate energy: average of the sample plants
Price fluctuation
factors between
2020 and 2030

(For reference)
Technological For next generation light-water reactor that is jointly developed toward a target
innovation and - year of 2030 by both government and private, the rationalization such as
volume efficiency shortening of construction period using modules is expected while the safety is
improved by the seismic isolation technology.

The maximum accident loss of Tokyo Electric Power Company, Fukushima


Nuclear Power Station No.1 is estimated in accordance with the quantitative
information obtained at this time and corrected to the model plant.
* Originally, the accident loss may be reduced by taking additional safety
measures such as radioactive material diffusion prevention measures.
Damage cost 9,108.8B yen However, these effects are not reflected.
* The calculation is performed in accordance with “Acceleration of Fukushima
Reconstruction from Nuclear Hazard” (cabinet council decision in Dec., 2013),
New and comprehensive special business plan (changed and approved in
April, 2015), Tokyo Electric Power Company’s third quarter financial result
reference of 2014, and website at Ministry of Finance.
1
As to the 24 stations of 15 nuclear power plants which are presently applying
the examination of conformity to the new regulation standard to Nuclear
Regulation Authority,
① the latest forecast of additional safety measure expenses was heard,
② to improve the accuracy further, the detail contents of expenses were heard
Additional
60.1B yen on the four stations of two nuclear power plants that are already permitted to
safety measures cost
change the installation at this time, and the contents were corrected to those
of the model plant, and
③ based on the above processes, the average of the total 24 stations of 15
nuclear power plants was calculated, reflecting those results.

Nuclear disaster prevention - Arranged in policy expenses


[Exchange rate] It is assumed that the exchange rate does not change in the future. The exchange rate
is used for provisional calculations of fuel expenses.

[Discount rate] This rate per year is used to convert the future cash value into the current value. When
Remarks the discount rate is high, the power supply has a high fuel expense ratio (power supply in which costs
that occur in the future are high. generally, thermal power > nuclear power > hydraulic power). Thus,
the unit price of the power generation is small as a current value.

[Direct expenses] Total of labor cost, repair expenses, and incidental expenses

2
2. Coal fired power generation
Data of the power plants (4 sample plants) that have operated for the latest 7 years;
interviews with related business operators.
* Sample plants (Name, rated output, operation start year)
Base of specifications Isogo New No.2, J-Power: 0.6 M kW, 2009
Maizuru No.2, Kansai Electric Power Company: 0.9 M kW, 2010
Hirono No.6, Tokyo Electric Power Company: 0.6 M kW, 2013
Hitachinaka No.2, Tokyo Electric Power Company: 1 M kW, 2013
Scale (output) of
800,000 kW Average of the sample plant outputs
a model plant
〇80 % 〇70 %
Facility utilization factor
〇60 % 〇50 % Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
〇10 %
〇40 years
Number of operation years Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
〇30 years
Construction costs of a power plant. For the model plant, considering the case that
Capital cost

Construction cost 250K yen/kW multiple plants are constructed at one site, the cost (including that for replacement)
of common equipment is averaged.
The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of Generating
Facility-scrapping 5% of the
Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there is no particular
cost construction cost
data of scrapping cost from each country.
Labor cost necessary to operate the power plant. Salaries, welfare expenses, and
Labor cost 360M yen/year
Operation and maintenance

severance benefits are included. Average of the sample plants.


1.8 %/year Inspection and maintenance expenses necessary to keep the equipment
Repair cost (Proportion in the necessary to generate power in normal operation condition, accounted as the
construction cost) average through the operation years. Average of the sample plants.
costs

1.5 %/year Waste disposal expenses, consumable expenses, rental expenses, commission
Incidental expenses (Proportion in the expenses, non-life insurance premium, miscellaneous pays, and nuclear fuel tax.
construction cost) Average of the sample plants.
Work assignment 14.3 %/year Expenses related in general to the electric power business (labor cost, repair
cost (general (Proportion in the expenses, and incidental expenses of head office) are distributed as expenses
administrative cost) direct cost) necessary for the relevant electric utility industry. Average of the sample plants.
97.64 $/t Averaged duty-paid CIF prices of fuel coal cleared through all Japanese customs
Initial year price
(0.004 $/MJ) in 2014.
25.97 MJ/kg The standard calorific value of imported fuel coal. (List of standard calorific values
Fuel calorific value
Fuel cost

(LHV: 24.66 MJ/kg) and carbon emission factors that apply to the comprehensive energy statistics).
Heat efficiency 42 % HHV and value at generating end: average of the sample plants.
Loss factor of plant- A ratio of the electric energy used in the power plant to the generated energy.
6.4 %
home use Average of the sample plants.
Fuel incidental 2,000 yen/t Petroleum and coal tax, import commissions, domestic transport fares, call center
expenses (0.077 yen/MJ) usage charges, and landing charges: average of each company’s latest results
〇Increase in
Presently, an ultra-super critical power plant (USC) with a thermal efficiency of
generation
Technological 42% has been put into practice. In the future, the technical development of an
efficiency
innovation and integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and an advanced ultra super
・ 2014: 42%
volume efficiency critical (A-USC) will be promoted to improve the thermal efficiency to 48% up to
・ 2020: 42%
2030.
Price fluctuation factors

・ 2030: 48%
• IEA current policy
The first year price is determined to $97.64/ton as described above. In the next
scenario
Fuel cost climb year onward, the price trend of the current policy scenario and new policy scenario
• IEA new policy
stated in IEA’s “World Energy Outlook 2014” is applied.
scenario
In the current policy scenario, the price of EC’s current policy scenario is used in
2020 to 2040 and the extension of this trend (logarithmic regression) is used in
• IEA/EU current
CO2 2040 to 2070. In the new policy scenario, the price of EC’s new policy scenario is
policy scenario
countermeasures used in 2020 to 2040 and the extension of this trend (logarithmic regression) is
• IEA/EU new
cost used in 2040 to 2070. Additionally, the price in 2014 is determined to the average
policy scenario
price of the typical European emission trade market in 2014, subjected to a linear
interpolation with 2020 price.

3
3. LNG fired power generation
Data of the power plants (4 sample plants) that have operated for the latest 7 years;
interviews with related business operators.
* Sample plants (Name, rated output, operation start year)
Base of specifications Kawasaki No.1 Group, Tokyo Electric Power Company: 1.50 M kW, 2009
Futtsu No.4 Group, Tokyo Electric Power Company: 1.52 M kW, 2010
Joetsu No.1 Group, Chubu Electric Power Company: 1.19 M kW, 2013
HImeji No.2, New No.1 to 3, Kansai Electric Power Company: 1.461 M kW, 2013
Scale (output) of
1,400,000 kW Average of the sample plant outputs
a model plant
〇80 % 〇70 %
〇60 % 〇50 %
Facility utilization factor Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
〇40 % 〇30 %
〇10 %
〇40 years
Number of operation years Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
〇30 years
Construction costs of a power plant. For the model plant, considering the case
Capital cost

Construction cost 120K yen/kW that multiple plants are constructed at one site, the cost (including that for
replacement) of common equipment is averaged.
The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of
Facility-scrapping 5% of the
Generating Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there
cost construction cost
is no particular data of scrapping cost from each country.
Labor cost necessary to operate the power plant. Salaries, welfare expenses,
Labor cost 600M yen/year
Operation and maintenance

and severance benefits are included. Average of the sample plants.


1.6 %/year Inspection and maintenance expenses necessary to keep the equipment
Repair cost (Proportion in the necessary to generate power in normal operation condition, accounted as the
construction cost) average through the operation years. Average of the sample plants.
costs

0.7 %/year Waste disposal expenses, consumable expenses, rental expenses,


Incidental expenses (Proportion in the commission expenses, non-life insurance premium, miscellaneous pays, and
construction cost) nuclear fuel tax. Average of the sample plants.
Work assignment 14.5 %/year Expenses related in general to the business (labor cost, repair expenses, and
cost (general (Proportion in the incidental expenses of head office) are distributed as expenses necessary for
administrative cost) direct cost) the relevant electric utility industry. Average of the sample plants.
842.43 $/t Averaged duty-paid CIF prices of LNG cleared through all Japanese customs in
Initial year price
(0.015 $/MJ) 2014
The standard calorific value of imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). (List of
55.01 MJ/kg
Fuel calorific value standard calorific values and carbon emission factors that apply to the
Fuel cost

(LHV: 50.06 MJ/kg)


comprehensive energy statistics)
Heat efficiency 52 % Value at generating end on HHV basis: average of the sample plants
Loss factor of plant- A ratio of the electric energy used in the power plant for power generation to the
2.0 %
home use generated energy. Average of the sample plants.
Fuel incidental 2700 yen/t Petroleum and coal tax, import commissions, liquefying cost, etc. Average of
expenses (0.049 yen/MJ) each company’s latest results.
〇Increase of power
generation
Price fluctuation factors

Technological Presently, 1500ºC-class gas turbine with a thermal efficiency of 52% has been
efficiency
innovation and put into practice. In the future, the technical development of 1700ºC-class gas
・ Year 2014: 52 %
volume efficiency turbine will be promoted to improve the thermal efficiency up to 57% by 2030.
・ Year 2020: 52 %
・ Year 2030: 57 %
• IEA current policy
The first year unit price is converted to $842.43/ton as described above. In the
scenario
Fuel cost climb next year onward, the price trend of the current policy scenario and new policy
• IEA new policy
scenario stated in IEA’s “World Energy Outlook 2014” is applied.
scenario

4
In the current policy scenario, the price of EC’s current policy scenario is used
in 2020 to 2040 and the extension of this trend (logarithmic regression) is used
• IEA/EU current
CO2 in 2040 to 2070. In the new policy scenario, the price of EC’s new policy
policy scenario
countermeasures scenario is used in 2020 to 2040 and the extension of this trend (logarithmic
• IEA/EU new
cost regression) is used in 2040 to 2070. Additionally, the price in 2014 is
policy scenario
determined to the average price of the typical European emission trade market
in 2014, subjected to a linear interpolation with 2020 price.

5
4. Oil fired power generation
Data of power plants which were started in 1987 and after (4 sample plants having the same data as those of
provisional calculation in 1999); interviews with related business operators.
* Sample plants (Name, rated output, operation start year)
Base of specifications Owasemita No.3, Chubu Electric Power Company: 0.50 M kW, 1987
Miyazu No.1, Kansai Electric Power Company: 0.375 M kW, 1989
Miyazu No.2, Kansai Electric Power Company: 0.375 M kW, 1989
Shiriuchi No.2, Hokkaido Electric Power Company: 0.35 M kW, 1998
Scale (output) of
400,000 kW Average of the sample plant outputs
a model plant
〇80 % 〇70 %
〇60 % 〇50 %
Facility utilization factor Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
〇30 % 〇20 %
〇10 %
〇40 years
Number of operation years Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
〇30 years
Construction costs of a power plant. For the model plant, considering the case that
Capital cost

Construction cost 200K yen/kW multiple plants are constructed at one site, the cost (including that for replacement) of
common equipment is averaged.
The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of Generating
Facility-scrapping 5% of the
Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there is no particular
cost construction cost
data of scrapping cost from each country.
Labor cost necessary to operate the power plant. Salaries, welfare expenses, and
Labor cost 190M yen/year
Operation and maintenance

severance benefits are included. Average of the sample plants.


1.8 %/year Inspection and maintenance expenses necessary to keep the equipment necessary to
Repair cost (Proportion in the generate power in normal operation condition, accounted as the average through the
construction cost) operation years. Average of the sample plants.
costs

0.9 %/year Waste disposal expenses, consumable expenses, rental expenses, commission
Incidental expenses (Proportion in the expenses, non-life insurance premium, miscellaneous pays, and nuclear fuel tax.
construction cost) Average of the sample plants.
Work assignment 9.3 %/year Expenses related in general to the business (labor cost, repair expenses, and
cost (general (Proportion in the incidental expenses of head office) are distributed as expenses necessary for the
administrative cost) direct cost) relevant electric utility industry. Average of the sample plants.
105.11 $/bbl Averaged duty-paid CIF prices of crude oil cleared through all Japanese customs in
Initial year price
(0.016 $/MJ) 2014
The standard calorific value of fuel oil C for power generation. (List of standard
41.16 MJ/l
Fuel calorific value calorific values and carbon emission factors that apply to the comprehensive energy
Fuel cost

(LHV: 39.05 MJ/l)


statistics)
Heat efficiency 39 % Value at generating end on HHV basis. Average of the sample plants.
Loss factor of plant- A ratio of the electric energy used in the power plant for power generation to the
4.8 %
home use generated energy. Average of the sample plants.
Fuel incidental 9300 yen/kl Petroleum and coal tax, domestic transport fares, landing charges, tank management
expenses (0.226 yen/MJ) expenses, refining/desulfurization cost, etc. Average of each company’s latest results.
〇Improvement of
Technological power generation Power generation efficiency of an oil fired power plant is estimated based on the
innovation and efficiency database of the latest-model coal fired and LNG fired power plants published by US
volume efficiency ・ Year 2014, 39% DOE, on condition that the super critical oil fired power generation is actualized.
・ Year 2030, 48%
Price fluctuation factors

• IEA current policy


The first year price is determined to $105.11/bbl as described above. In the next year
scenario
Fuel cost climb onward, the price trend of the current policy scenario and new policy scenario stated in
• IEA new policy
IEA’s “World Energy Outlook 2014” is applied.
scenario
In the current policy scenario, the price of EU’s current policy scenario is used in 2020
to 2040 and the extension of this trend (logarithmic regression) is used in 2040 to
• IEA/EU current
CO2 2070. In the new policy scenario, the price of EU’s new policy scenario is used in 2020
policy scenario
countermeasures to 2040 and the extension of this trend (logarithmic regression) is used in 2040 to
• IEA/EU new policy
cost 2070. Additionally, the price in 2014 is determined to the average price of the typical
scenario
European emission trade market in 2014, subjected to a linear interpolation with 2020
price.

6
5 (1) Onshore wind power generation

Base of specifications Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee, hearings with industries, others.

Scale (output)of The scale is assumed to be equivalent to that of Cost Verification Committee
20,000 kW
a model plant report and Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee.
Facility utilization factor 〇20 % From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
Almost all wind turbines used for the electric utility industries in the world are
designed and manufactured in conformity with the standards specified by IEC
〇25 years (International Electrotechnical Commission). The IEC defines that the design
Number of operation years
〇20 years service life of a wind turbine is 20 years. However, in overseas countries, there
are some examples that a wind turbine is operated over the design service life
of 20 years.
From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
284K yen/kW (The connection cost that is about 5.2% of the construction cost of 300K
Construction cost
Capital cost

⇒ 5.68B yen yen/kW assumed by Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee was
excepted.)
The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of
Facility-scrapping 5% of the Generating Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there
cost construction cost is no particular data of scrapping cost from each country. (The same concept
was taken by Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee.)
Labor cost
Operation and
maintenance

Repair cost
costs

Incidental expenses
6K yen/kW/year From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
Work assignment
cost (general
administrative cost)
Initial year price - -
Fuel cost

Loss factor of plant-


- -
home use
Fuel incidental
- -
expenses
〇Decrease of
construction cost
・ Year 2020: 255K to
272K, up to 284K
The construction cost and operation maintenance cost in 2020 and 2030 were
yen/kW
set in three cases shown below based on the parameters of the model plant in
・ Year 2030: 205K to
2014.
252K, up to 284K
Case 1: The unit prices in 2014 would not change, not expecting the price
yen/kW
reduction.
〇Decrease of
Case 2: The unit prices would be reduced in accordance with IEA’s
operation and
Price fluctuation factors

“Technology Roadmap Wind Energy 2013.”


maintenance
Case 3: The costs such as turbines and electrical facilities would be
Technological costs
converged to the international prices.
innovation and ・ Year 2020, 5.4K to
volume efficiency 5.7K, up to 6K
Additionally, for the equipment utilization factor after 2020, the upper limit was
yen/kW
set to 23%, considering the technical development to improve the power
・ Year 2030, 4.3K to
generation efficiency of the wind turbine, make the size larger, and improve the
5.3K, up to 6K
reliability and equipment utilization factor.
yen/kW
〇Improvement of
* The facility scrapping cost was determined assuming that the construction
equipment
cost would not change from 5% of the construction cost of 2014 model plant
utilization rate
regardless of the construction cost.
・ Year 2020: 20 to
23 %
・ Year 2030: 20 to
23 %
Fuel cost climb rate - -

7
5 (2) Offshore wind power generation

Base of specifications Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee, hearings with industries, others.

Scale (output) of 30,000 to 100,000 Determined based on the report of Study Group on Procurement Price for
a model plant kW Offshore Wind Power.
Facility utilization factor 〇30 % From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
Same as in the case of onshore wind power generation, IEC defines that the
〇25 years design service life of a wind turbine is 20 years. However, there are examples
Number of operation years
〇20 years that some overseas companies deliver a wind turbine with the design service life
of 25 years.
The construction cost estimated by Procurement Price, etc. Calculation
515K yen/kW ⇒
Construction cost Committee, from which the connection cost (50K yen/kW, which is the medium
Capital cost

15.45B to 51.5B yen


value of 30K to 70K yen) is subtracted.
The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of Generating
Facility-scrapping 5% of the Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there is no
cost construction cost particular data of scrapping cost from each country. (The same concept was
taken by Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee.)
Labor cost
Operation and
maintenance

Repair cost
costs

Incidental expenses
22.5K yen/kW/year From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
Work assignment
cost (general
administrative cost)
Initial year price - -
Fuel cost

Loss factor of plant-


- -
home use
Fuel incidental
- -
expenses
The construction cost and operation maintenance cost in 2020 and 2030 were
〇Decrease of set in two cases shown below based on the parameters of the model plant in
construction cost 2014.
Price fluctuation factors

・ Year 2030: 446K to Case 1: The unit prices in 2014 would not change, not expecting the price
Technological 515K yen/kW reduction.
innovation and 〇Decrease of Case 2: The unit prices would be reduced in accordance with IEA’s
volume efficiency operation and “Technology Roadmap Wind Energy 2013.”
maintenance cost
・ Year 2030: 19.5K * The facility scrapping cost was determined assuming that the construction
to 22.5K yen/kW cost would not change from 5% of the construction cost of 2014 model plant
regardless of the construction cost.
Fuel cost climb rate -

8
6. Geothermal power generation

Base of parameters Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee, hearings with industries, others.

Scale (output) of The scale is assumed to be equivalent to that of Cost Verification Committee
30,000 kW
a model plant report and Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee.
Facility utilization factor
〇83 % From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
〇50 years Because it is thought that the assumed operation years after the 2011 report of
Number of operation years 〇40 years the Cost Verification Committee do not change largely, the operation years that
〇30 years were set based on the results at that time are assumed.
790K yen/kW ⇒
Construction cost From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
Capital cost

23.7B yen
The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of
Facility-scrapping 5% of the Generating Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there
cost construction cost is no particular data of scrapping cost from each country. (The same concept
was taken by Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee.)
Labor cost
Operation and
maintenance

Repair cost
costs

Incidental expenses
33K yen/kW/year From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
Assigned work cost
(general
administrative cost)
When the steam suppliers supply the steam to the geothermal power generators
as fuel, the fuel costs are accounted on the securities report. This case is
assumed as a model plant, where the same business operator supplies steam
Initial year price -
and runs power generation business. Therefore, the fuel costs are not accounted
Fuel cost

because the hot water and steam collected from underground are regarded as
fuel.
Loss factor of plant-
11 % From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
home use
Fuel incidental
- -
expenses
Technical innovation and volume efficiency that may give great effect to the
Price fluctuation

Technological power generation cost are not assumed.


innovation and - (Reference) Improvement in economy is expected by further advance in
factors

volume efficiency technology for evaluating geothermal fluid reservoirs and development of
technology against scale and acid fluid.
The fuel cost is not accounted because hot water and steam collected from
Fuel cost climb rate -
underground are regarded as fuel.

9
7 (1) Solar power generation (for houses)

Base of parameters Procurement Prices, etc. Calculation Committee, interview with related industries, etc.

Scale (output) of Almost the same scale as those of the Committee for Verification of Cost, etc.
4 kW
a model plant report and the Procurement Prices, etc. Calculation Committee is assumed.
Facility utilization factor 〇12 % From the Procurement Prices, etc. Calculation Committee
Maker guarantee periods differ, depending on makers. The longest one is 10 to
〇25 years
Number of operation years 25 years. Overseas cost analyses reveal that a period of 20 or 25 years is
〇20 years
generally adopted.
Construction cost 364K yen/kW From the Procurement Prices, etc. Calculation Committee
Capital

The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of


cost

Facility-scrapping 5% of the
Generating Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there
cost construction cost
is no particular data of scrapping cost from each country.
Labor cost - -
Operation and
maintenance

Repair cost 3.6K yen/kW/year From the Procurement Prices, etc. Calculation Committee
costs

Incidental expenses - -
Assigned work cost
(general - -
administrative cost)
Initial year price - -
Fuel cost

In-plant power
- -
consumption rate
Fuel incidental
- -
expenses
〇 Decrease of construction cost 〇 Decrease in the construction cost
<New policy scenario> It is expected that modules, inverters, etc. will have
・Year 2020: 275K to 298K yen/kW a learning effect of cost reduction with a progress
・Year 2030: 206K to 258K yen/kW rate of 80%, based on the world’s accumulative
<Present policy scenario> production amount of the new policy scenario and
・Year 2020:280K to 303K yen/kW present policy scenario of IEA World Energy
・Year 2030: 220K to 274K yen/kW Outlook. The installation work cost is constant. A
case where modules, inverters, etc. converge on
〇 Decrease of operation and international standards is examined.
maintenance costs
<New policy scenario> 〇 Decrease in the operation and maintenance costs
Price fluctuation factors

・Year 2020: 2.72K to 2.95K yen/kW Cost reduction that was almost the same as the
Technological
・Year 2030: 2.04K to 2.55K yen/kW decreasing rate of the construction cost was
innovation and
<Present policy scenario> expected.
volume efficiency
・Year 2020: 2.77K to 3K yen/kW
・Year 2030: 2.17K to 2.71K yen/kW 〇 Increase in the number of operation years
The number of operation years of the model plant in
〇 Increase of operation years 2030 was determined to be at most 30 years, based
・Year 2030: 20 to 30 years on the discussion of the working group with the
technological development targets used as
reference.

* The facility scrapping cost was determined not to


change from 5% of the construction cost of the
model plant in 2014 regardless of whether the
construction cost decreases.

Fuel cost climb rate - -

10
7 (2) Solar power generation (mega solar power generation)

Base of parameters Procurement Prices, etc. Calculation Committee, interview with related industries, etc.

Scale (output) of Almost the same scale as that of the Procurement Prices, etc. Calculation
2,000 kW
a model plant Committee is assumed.
Facility utilization factor 〇14 % From the Procurement Prices, etc. Calculation Committee
Maker guarantee periods differ, depending on makers. The longest one is 20 to 25
〇25 years
Number of operation years years. Overseas cost analyses reveal that a period of 20 or 25 years is generally
〇20 years
adopted.
294K yen/kW ⇒ From the Procurement Prices, etc. Calculation Committee (Ground-making cost
Construction cost
Capital cost

588M yen was added to the system cost.)


The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of Generating
Facility-scrapping 5% of the Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there is no particular
cost construction cost data of scrapping cost from each country. (The same concept was taken by
Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee.)
Labor cost
Operation and
maintenance

Repair cost
This amount is the result of the operation and maintenance costs shown by the
costs

Incidental expenses
3.7K yen/kW/year Procurement Prices, etc. Calculation Committee from which a land rent was
Assigned work cost excluded.
(general
administrative cost)
Initial year price - -
Fuel cost

In-plant power
- -
consumption rate
Fuel incidental
- -
expenses
〇 Decrease of construction cost 〇 Decrease in the construction cost
<New policy scenario> It is expected that modules, inverters, etc. will have a
・Year 2020: 233K to 249K yen/kW learning effect of cost reduction with a progress rate of
・Year 2030: 185K to 222K yen/kW 80%, based on the world’s accumulative production
<Present policy scenario> amount of the new policy scenario and present policy
・Year 2020: 236K to 253K yen/kW scenario of IEA World Energy Outlook.
・Year 2030: 194K to 233K yen/kW The installation work cost is constant.
A case where modules, inverters, etc. converge on
〇 Decrease of operation and international standards is examined.
Price fluctuation factors

maintenance costs
<New policy scenario> 〇 Decrease in the operation and maintenance costs
Technological
・Year 2020: 3.24K to 3.37K yen/kW Cost reduction that was almost the same as the
innovation and
・Year 2030: 2.88K to 3.16K yen/kW decreasing rate of the construction cost was expected.
volume efficiency
<Present policy scenario>
・Year 2020: 3.27K to 3.39K yen/kW 〇 Increase in the number of operation years
・Year 2030: 2.95K to 3.24K yen/kW The number of operation years of the model plant in
2030 was determined to be at most 30 years, based
〇 Increase of operation years on the discussion of the working group with the
・Year 2030: 20 to 30 years technological development targets used as reference.

* The facility scrapping cost was determined not to


change from 5% of the construction cost of the model
plant in 2014 regardless of whether the construction
cost decreases.
Fuel cost climb rate - -

11
8 (1) General hydroelectric power generation
Data of the power plants (3 sample plants) that have operated for the latest 7 years; interviews with
related business operators.
* Sample plants (Name, rated output, operation start year)
Base of specifications
Eoroshi power plant, Hokkaido Electric Power Company: 13.8 K kW, 2006
Shinchubetsu power plant Hokkaido Electric Power Company: 10 K kW, 2006
Moriyoshi power plant Tohoku Electric Power Company: 11 K kW, 2013
Scale (output) of
12,000 kW Average of the sample plant outputs
a model plant
Facility utilization factor 〇45% The value which was set, taking actual situation into account
Number of operation years The value which was set by taking actual situation into account. (Set to be 60
〇60 years
years because a large scale replacement of main equipment (turbines, etc.)
〇40 years
must be done after 60 years of operation.)
Construction cost Construction costs of a power plant. The costs for buildings/structures and
Capital cost

640K yen/kW
mechanical equipment such as generator are averaged.
Facility-scrapping The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of
5% of the
cost Generating Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case
construction cost
there is no particular data of scrapping cost from each country.
Labor cost Labor cost necessary to operate the power plant. Salaries, welfare expenses,
20M yen/year
and severance benefits are included. Average of the sample plants.
Operation and maintenance

Repair cost 0.9 %/year Inspection and maintenance expenses necessary to keep the equipment
(Proportion in the necessary to generate power in normal operation condition, accounted as the
construction cost) average through certain operation years. Average of the sample plants.
costs

Incidental 0.1 %/year Waste disposal expenses, consumable expenses, rental expenses,
expenses (Proportion in the commission expenses, non-life insurance premium, miscellaneous pays, and
construction cost) nuclear fuel tax. Average of the sample plants
Work assignment 13.3 %/year Expenses related in general to the electric power business (labor cost, repair
cost (general (Proportion in the expenses, and incidental expenses of head office) are distributed as
administrative cost) direct cost) expenses necessary for the relevant electric utility industry. Average of the
sample plants.
Loss factor of plant- A ratio of the electric energy used in the power plant to the generated energy.
Fuel
cost

0.4 %
home use The average of the sample plants.
Technological Technical innovation and volume efficiency that may give great effect to the
fluctuation

innovation and - power generation cost are not assumed.


factors
Price

volume efficiency
Fuel cost climb - -

CO2 - -
countermeasures

12
8 (2) Small hydroelectric power generation

Base of specifications Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee, hearings with industries, others.

Scale (output) of The scale is assumed to be equivalent to that of Cost Verification Committee
200 kW
a model plant report and Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee.
Facility utilization factor 〇60 % From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
The values here are same as those of coal fired, LNG fired and oil fired power
〇40 years
Number of operation years plants. According to the hearing with industries, there is no significant difference
〇30 years
from the operation years which are generally supposed.
0.8M to 1M
From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
yen/kW
Construction cost (Connection cost is included because this cost is difficult to separate from the
Capital cost

⇒160M to 200M
construction cost.)
yen
The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of Generating
Facility-scrapping 5% of the Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there is no particular
cost construction cost data of scrapping cost from each country. (The same concept was taken by
Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee.)
Labor cost 7.00M yen/year From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
Operation and maintenance

1 %/year
Repair cost (Proportion in the From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
construction cost)
2 %/year
costs

Incidental expenses (Proportion in the From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
construction cost)
Work assignment 14 %/year
cost (general (Proportion in the From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
administrative cost) direct cost)
Initial year price - -
Fuel cost

Loss factor of plant-


- -
home use
Fuel incidental
- -
expenses
Technological
Technical innovation and volume efficiency that may give great effect to the power
Price fluctuation

innovation and -
generation cost are not assumed.
volume efficiency
factors

Fuel cost climb - -

13
9 (1) Biomass power generation (wood mono fired)

Base of specifications Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee, hearings with industries, others.

Scale (output) of Almost the same scale as that of the Procurement Price, etc. Calculation
5,700 kW
a model plant Committee is assumed.
〇87 % (by PPCC*) Multiple conditions are set for comparison based on the data of Procurement
Facility utilization factor 〇80 % 〇70 % Price, etc. Calculation Committee as well as taking actual situation into account.
〇60 % 〇50 % *PPCC: Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
The values here are same as those of coal fired, LNG fired and oil fired power
〇40 years plants.
Number of operation years 〇30 years In addition, according to the hearing with industries, many general operators of
〇20 years biomass power generation business assume the number of operation years to be
15 to 20. However it is possible to set this value to 30 or more years.
398K yen/kW The construction cost estimated by Procurement Price, etc. Calculation
Construction cost
Capital cost

⇒ 2,267 M yen Committee, from which the connection cost of 70 M yen) is subtracted.
The value of provisional calculation in OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of
Facility-scrapping 5% of the Generating Electricity 2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there
cost construction cost is no particular data of scrapping cost from each country. (The same concept
was taken by Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee.)
Labor cost
Operation and
maintenance

Repair cost
costs

Incidental expenses
27K yen/kW From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
Work assignment
cost (general
administrative cost)
Initial year price 12K yen/t From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
For unused thinned wood, it is expected to reduce the collection and
transportation costs by promoting the policies (maintenance of work roads for
Fuel cost climb rate - wood transportation) to improve the wood self-sufficiency. On the other hand,
increase in wood demand for power generation may cause the cost to increase.
Fuel cost

Therefore, it is assumed that the total fuel cost does not change.

Fuel volume From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
60K t
required (Fuel volume required at 87% facility utilization factor)
Loss factor of plant-
16 % From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
home use
Fuel incidental
750 yen/t From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
expenses
Technological
Technical innovation and volume efficiency that may give great effect to the power
innovation and -
Price fluctuation

generation cost are not assumed.


volume efficiency
factors

For unused thinned wood, it is expected to reduce the collection and


transportation costs by promoting the policies (maintenance of work roads for
Fuel cost climb rate - wood transportation) to improve the wood self-sufficiency. On the other hand,
increase in wood demand for power generation may cause the cost to increase.
Therefore, it is assumed that the total fuel cost does not change.

14
9 (2) Biomass power generation (coal mixed fired)

Base of specifications Interviews with related business operators.

Scale (output) of It is set that unused thinned wood is mixed to a model plant of coal fired power
800,000 kW
a model plant generation (800,000 kW).
〇80 % 〇70 %
Facility utilization factor 〇60 % 〇50 % Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
〇10 %
〇40 years
Number of operation years The values here are same as those of coal fired, LNG fired and oil fired power plants.
〇30 years
The data is obtained by interviewing the related business operators who started the
mixed burning after the start of the feed-in tariff system. Additional costs (mixed burnt
Capital cost

Construction cost 300M to 500M yen


facility maintenance costs) necessary to mixed burnt wooden chips at the coal fired
power plant are accounted.
The value indicated by OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010
Facility-scrapping 5% of the
Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there is no particular scrapping cost data
cost construction cost
in each country.
The data is obtained by interviewing the related business operators who started the
Operation and maintenance costs

mixed burning after the start of the feed-in tariff system. Additional labor cost
Labor cost 10M yen/year
necessary for the biomass mixed burning such as wooden chip procurement,
receiving, and work to mix wooden chips with coal are accounted.
1.8 %/year The value of a coal fired power plant is used because unused thinned wood is mixed to
Repair cost (Proportion in the be fired in a model plant of coal fired power generation (0.8 M kW). Because the
construction cost) sample plant of coal fired power generation has been changed, the value is corrected.
1.5 %/year The value of a coal fired power plant is used because unused thinned wood is mixed to
Incidental expenses (Proportion in the be fired in a model plant of coal fired power generation (0.8 M kW). Though the sample
construction cost) plant of coal fired power generation has been changed, the value is not changed.
Work assignment 14.3 %/year The value of a coal fired power plant is used because unused thinned wood is mixed to
cost (general (Proportion in the be fired in a model plant of coal fired power generation (0.8 M kW). Because the
administrative cost) direct cost) sample plant of coal fired power generation has been changed, the value is corrected.
Initial year price 12K yen/t From the data of Procurement Price, etc. Calculation Committee
For unused thinned wood, it is expected to reduce the collection and transportation
costs by promoting the policies (maintenance of work roads for wood transportation) to
Fuel cost climb rate - improve the wood self-sufficiency. On the other hand, increase in wood demand for
power generation may cause the cost to increase. Therefore, it is assumed that the
total fuel cost does not change.
Standard calorific value of solid biomass fuel (List of standard calorific values and
Fuel calorific value 17.79 MJ/kg
Fuel cost

carbon emission factors which are applied to the comprehensive energy statistics)
The value of a coal fired power plant is used because unused thinned wood is mixed to
Heat efficiency 42 % be fired in a model plant of coal fired power generation (0.8 M kW). Though the sample
plant of coal fired power generation has been changed, the value is not changed.
The value of a coal fired power plant is used because unused thinned wood is mixed to
Loss factor of plant-
6.4 % be fired in a model plant of coal fired power generation (0.8 M kW). Because the
home use
sample plant of coal fired power generation has been changed, the value is corrected.
Coal firing:
Fuel incidental Fuel incidental costs for coal firing and biomass power plants are accounted,
2,000 yen/t
expenses corresponding to the mixed fuel burning ratio.
Biomass: 750 yen/t
Technological
For additional costs related to the mixed burning , technical innovation or volume
innovation and -
Price fluctuation

efficiency that may give great effect to the power generation cost are not assumed.
volume efficiency
factors

For unused thinned wood, it is expected to reduce the collection and transportation
costs by promoting the policies (maintenance of work roads for wood transportation) to
Fuel cost climb rate - improve the wood self-sufficiency. On the other hand, increase in wood demand for
power generation may cause the cost to increase. Therefore, it is assumed that the
total fuel cost does not change.

15
10 (1) Gas cogeneration
Data of facilities that have operated for the latest 5 years (obtained by interviews with related
Base of specifications
business operators)
Scale (output) of
6,700 kW Average of interviewed business operators' actual results
a model plant
〇80 % 〇70 %
〇60 % 〇50 %
〇40 %
<For reference>
Facility utilization factor * Averaged actual Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
results of
interviewed
business
operators: 36%
〇30 years
〇15 years
Number of operation years Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
(Statutory
durable years)
Construction cost 121K yen/kW Average of interviewed business operators' actual results
Capital

The value indicated by OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity


cost

Facility-scrapping 5% of the
2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there is no particular
cost construction cost
scrapping cost data in each country.
(Included in the
Labor cost -
repair cost)
Average of interviewed business operators' actual results, including various
maintenance costs

kinds of inspection, plugs, lubricants, other necessary component


Operation and

Repair cost 10K yen/kW・year replacements, and overhauls, etc. There are inspection menus per operation
hours (every 2,000 hrs., every 4,000 hrs., and every 8,000 hrs., etc.), and the
value per year is accounted as the average through operation years.
(Included in the
Incidental expenses -
repair cost)
Work assignment
cost (general (Not accounted) -
administrative cost)
Initial year 842.43 $/t Averaged duty-paid CIF prices of LNG cleared through all Japanese customs in
price (0.015 $/MJ) 2014 (same as that of LNG fired power generation)
CIF price

HHV: 55.01 MJ/kg


Fuel calorific Standard calorific value of imported natural gas (LNG) (same as that of LNG
(LHV: 50.06
value fired power generation)
MJ/kg)
Fuel incidental 2,700yen/t
Same as that of LNG fired power generation
expenses (0.049 yen/MJ)
City gas rates are calculated assuming that the raw material cost (LNG) is
Price in demand area

similar to the average of the duty-paid CIF prices of LNG cleared through all
Initial year Japanese customs and the exchange rate is 105.24 yen/$ based on the city gas
Fuel cost

83.26 yen/m3
price rate calculation methods of three major gas companies. In the gas
cogeneration, the calculated is made based on the city gas rate for large scale
customers.
Fuel calorific A typical standard calorific value of the standard fuelold by major gas
45MJ/Nm3 (HHV)
value companies shown above.
Power generation
Heat efficiency: 36.0% Value at the generating end on HHV basis
Common

efficiency Heat recovery Average of interviewed business operators' actual results


efficiency: 29.2%
Loss factor of
plant-home 2.3 % Average of interviewed business operators' actual results
use

16
Based on the final report of Study Group on Advanced Cogeneration.
〇Outlook of improvement in gas turbine and gas engine power generation
〇Improvement of efficiency (shown below) in the above report is adopted.
* Gas engine: At present Gas engine: 49.0% / Gas turbine: 30.6%
43.8% (year 2020) Year 2020 Gas engine: over 50% / Gas turbine: over 32%
Technological 44.7% (year 2030) Year 2030 Gas engine: over 51% / Gas turbine: over 34%
innovation and * Gas turbine: (On LHV basis in both cases)
Price fluctuation factors

volume efficiency 27.1% (year 2020) * In a provisional calculation of generation cost, the above values of improved
28.9% (year 2030) generation efficiency were accounted to the model plant.
(On HHV basis in At present Gas engine: 36.0% / Gas turbine: 29.2%
both cases) Year 2020 Gas engine: over 37.1% / Gas turbine: over 28.2%
Year 2030 Gas engine: over 38.4% / Gas turbine: over 26.9%
(On HHV basis in both cases)
• IEA current CIF price is the same as that of LNG fired power generation.
policy scenario For the price in demand area, the city gas rate is calculated assuming that the
Fuel cost climb
• IEA new policy price of raw material (LNG) changes similarly to the CIF price, based on the
scenario method of calculating the first year price.
• IEA/EU current
CO2 Same as that of LNG fired power generation.
policy scenario
countermeasures Additionally, the exhaust heat value and CO2 countermeasure costs that may
• IEA/EU new
cost occur with the generation of this exhaust heat value are subtracted together.
policy scenario

17
10 (2) Oil cogeneration

Base of specifications Obtained by interviews with related business operators

Scale (output) of
1,500 kW Average of interviewed business operators' actual results
a model plant
〇80 % 〇70%
〇60 % 〇50 %
〇40 %
<For reference>
Facility utilization factor * Averaged actual Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
results of
interviewed
business
operators: 36%
〇30 years
〇15 years
Number of operation years Multiple conditions are set for comparison, taking actual situation into account.
(Statutory
durable years)
Construction cost 130K yen/kW Average of interviewed business operators' actual results
Capital

The value indicated by OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity


cost

Facility-scrapping 5% of the
2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there is no particular
cost construction cost
scrapping cost data in each country.
(Included in the
Labor cost -
Operation and maintenance costs

repair cost)
Average of interviewed business operators' actual results. Repair of engines
and generators includes various kinds of inspection, plugs, lubricants, other
necessary component replacements, and overhauls, etc. There are inspection
Repair cost 7.9K yen/kW・year
menus per operation hours (every 2,500 hrs., every 5,000 hrs., every 10,000
hrs., and every 20,000 hrs., etc.), and the value per year is accounted as the
average through operation years.
(Included in the
Incidental expenses -
repair cost)
Work assignment
cost (general (Not accounted) -
administrative cost)
Initial year 105.11 $/bbl Averaged duty-paid CIF prices of crude cleared through all Japanese customs
price (0.016 $/MJ) in 2014 (same as that of oil fired power generation)
CIF price

Fuel calorific HHV: 41.16MJ/l


Same as that of oil fired power generation
value (LHV: 39.05 MJ/l)
Fuel incidental 9,300 yen/kl
Same as that of oil fired power generation
expenses (0.226 yen/MJ)
Calculated as A crude oil price assuming that the raw material (crude oil) price
Price in demand area

is similar to the average of the duty-paid CIF prices of crude oil cleared through
Initial year
92.35 yen/l all Japanese customs and the exchange rate is 105.24 yen/$ by considering the
price
average of the industrial price (for A crude oil) in the oil product price
Fuel cost

investigation from 2010 to 2014.


A standard calorific value of A crude oil. (List of standard calorific values and
Fuel calorific HHV: 38.90MJ/l
carbon emission factors which are applied to the comprehensive energy
value (LHV: 36.73 MJ/l)
statistics)
Power generation
Heat efficiency: 32.9 % Value at the generating end on HHV basis
efficiency Heat recovery Average of interviewed business operators' actual results
Common

efficiency: 22.7 %
Loss factor of
plant-home 3 % Average of interviewed business operators' actual results
use

18
Technical innovation and volume efficiency that may give great effect to the
Technological
power generation cost are not assumed.
innovation and -
(Reference) Improvement of power generation efficiency is expected by the
Price fluctuation factors
volume efficiency
improvement of diesel engine efficiency.
• IEA current CIF price is the same as that of LNG fired power generation.
policy scenario For the price in demand area, A crude oil price is calculated assuming that the
Fuel cost climb
• IEA new policy price of raw material (crude oil) changes similarly to the CIF price, based on the
scenario method of calculating the first year price.
• IEA/EU current
CO2 Same as that of oil fired power generation.
policy scenario
countermeasures Additionally, the exhaust heat value and CO2 countermeasure costs that may
• IEA/EU new
cost occur with the generation of this exhaust heat value are subtracted together.
policy scenario

19
11. Fuel cell
Provisional calculations are performed from ENE FARM subsidiary payments data and hearing with
Base of specifications
business operators.
Scale (output) of
0.7 kW A standard output of market equipment
a model plant
Facility utilization factor 〇46.8 % A value from the hearing with business operators
〇10 years
Number of operation years Multiple conditions are set for comparison by considering the factual situation
〇6 years
Construction costs are included. The sales price of the gas water heater (ECO
Capital cost

Construction cost 182K yen/kW JYOZU) is deducted from the average application amount (1.449 M yen/unit) of
the subsidiary payments (including the construction cost, sales price basis).
The value indicated by OECD/IEA “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity
Facility-scrapping 5% of the
2010 Edition” (2010) is used as a value in the case there is no particular
cost construction cost
scrapping cost data in each country.
Labor cost
maintenance costs

34.4K yen/kW・ A value from the hearing with business operators


Operation and

Repair cost
year Sum of maintenance cost and repair cost
Incidental expenses Consumable parts cost, etc.
Work assignment
cost (general -
administrative cost)
842.43 $/t Averaged duty-paid CIF prices of LNG cleared through all Japanese customs in
Initial year price
(0.015 $/MJ) 2014 (same as that of LNG fired power generation)
HHV: 55.01 MJ/kg Standard calorific value of imported natural gas (LNG) (same as that of LNG
Fuel calorific value
(LHV: 50.06 MJ/kg) fired power generation)
Fuel incidental 2,700 yen/t
Same as that of LNG fired power generation
expenses (0.049 yen/MJ)
City gas rates are calculated assuming that the raw material cost (LNG) is
similar to the average of the duty-paid CIF prices of LNG cleared through all
Fuel cost

Initial year price 110.19 yen/m3 Japanese customs and the exchange rate is 105.24 yen/$ based on the city gas
rate calculation methods of four major gas companies. In the fuel cell, the
calculation is made based on the city gas rate for house use.
A typical standard calorific value of the standard fuelold by major gas
Fuel calorific value 45 MJ/Nm3 (HHV)
companies shown above
Power generation
efficiency: 35.7 % Value at the generating end on HHV basis
Heat efficiency
Heat recovery Average of market equipment of the latest type
efficiency: 49.8 %
Loss factor of plant-
(Not accounted) -
home use
〇Improvement of
facility utilization The equipment utilization factor is improved by the increase of SOFC ratio.
factors In addition, multiple conditions are set, expecting the improvement of utilization
〇49.5 % factor by the selling of generated electricity in the future.
Price fluctuation factors

〇71.4 %
〇Decrease of
Technological price
innovation and 2020: 680K Construction costs are included. This value is calculated from the “Hydrogen
volume efficiency yen/kW and Fuel Cell Strategy Road Map” formulated in June, 2014.
2030: 429K
yen/kW
〇Increase of
Values obtained from the hearing with business operators
operation years
The operation years for 2020 and 2030 are set to 15 years, adding the
2020: 15 years
improvement of durability by technical development.
2030: 15 years

20
〇Decrease of
repair cost Values obtained from the hearing with business operators
2020: 7.1K It is assumed that the repair cost is reduced because the periodic maintenance
yen/kW・year is not needed after 2020 and the component price decreases accompanied by
2030: 4.7K the decrease of device cost.
yen/kW・year
〇Improvement of
power
generation
efficiency
Year 2020:
Power generation
Value at the generating end on HHV basis
efficiency: 39.4%
The future power generation efficiency is assumed based on “Fuel Cell And
Heat recovery
Hydrogen Technology Development Road Map 2010” announced by New
efficiency: 44.1%
Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Germany.
Year 2030:
Power generation
efficiency: 43.0%
Heat recovery
efficiency: 40.5%

• IEA current CIF price is the same as that of LNG fired power generation.
policy scenario For the price in demand area, the city gas rate is calculated assuming that the
Fuel cost climb rate
• IEA new policy price of raw material (LNG) changes similarly to the CIF price, based on the
scenario method of calculating the first year price.
• IEA/EU current
CO2
policy scenario Same as that of gas cogeneration.
countermeasures
• IEA/EU new
cost
policy scenario

21