Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Unstable, C Carbon Constrained World b C i d W ld Cost Comparison of Spent Fuel Storage and Deep Geological Disposal p g p Graham Smith Graham Smith GMS Abingdon Ltd gmsabingdon@btinternet.com Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Two Assertions • That the costs of storing spent fuel above ground in dry casks a. at the reactor site or b. at an agreed remote location, cost much less than deep geological t l ti t h l th d l i l disposal of the sort associated with a. Yucca Mountain b a proposed European site b. a proposed European site. • That there would be merit in giving the utilities which produce the spent fuel some financial stake in the produce the spent fuel some financial stake in the management of the spent fuel, if only to discipline the process from becoming unhinged from cost constraints. Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel: Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Some interesting references..? • Stepwise Approach to Decision Making for Long ‐ term Radioactive Waste Management. NEA ‐ OECD, 2004 • The Role of Storage in Management of Long lived Radioactive • The Role of Storage in Management of Long ‐ lived Radioactive Waste. NEA ‐ OECD, 2006 • Costing methodologies. EC TREN/05/NUCL/S07.55436 • Cost Estimates for Disposal of Spent Fuel from New Build Reactors in the UK. Chapman and McCombie. MCM ‐ TR ‐ 06 ‐ 01, 2006 2006 • Uranium and Plutonium: Macro ‐ Economic Study. UK NDA, 2007. • Spent Fuel Management: Life Cycle Analysis Model. UK NDA, Spent Fuel Management: Life Cycle Analysis Model. UK NDA, September 2007 • Yucca Mountain Licence Support Network (www.lsnnet.gov/) • More in accompanying paper… Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel: Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
What costs, who pays, who benefits? Risks of action... and inaction • Will I die? • Will you die? • Will you die? • Do I have to pay so that you don’t die? And Benefits... • A hazard has been reduced, or eliminated , • Can I get the liability off the books! Future of Nuclear Energy in a Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel: Prague, March 2008 Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Perspective on risk... Perspective on risk... Spent Fuel Storage NW Russia Would you pay for this to be done better? Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel: Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Perspective on benefits... Perspective on benefits... Making the world a safer place for democracy democracy. Did MAD work? Does it still? Are we in Are we in fact, still enjoying the benefit? Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel: Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Pros and Cons: Disposal Pros • Major hazard reduced sooner honestly It says so on Major hazard reduced sooner, honestly.. It says so on the label! • Liability is managed and controlled in shorter time ‐ Liability is managed and controlled in shorter time scale... by the generation (or so) that caused the problem. (IAEA Safety Fundamental principle.) Cons • Other management options foreclosed g p • Political uncertainties in being able to deliver the option... You might decide to do it and then fail... Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel: Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Pros and Cons: Storage Pros Pros • Option remains open for re ‐ use of materials • And to develop safer disposal, or other ‘final’ solution p p Cons • Major hazard left on the surface... – accidents – misuse of material later by the owner or others – degradation of store containment before final solution implemented – degradation of store containment before ‘final’ solution implemented • Responsibility left to others. – They may not be as responsible as the US DOE is today – Intergenerational equity etc... • At the end of storage period, you still have a hazardous material to manage!!! to manage!!! Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
NEA Stepwise Approach p pp “... is meant to help build closer ties between the radioactive waste management and the the radioactive waste management and the social science communities, contributing to the reflection on stepwise decision making the reflection on stepwise decision making through the provision of several perspectives supported by an extensive set of references. supported by an extensive set of references ” “Stepwise decision making allows for reversibility of decisions ” reversibility of decisions.” What does this mean for confidence in cost estimates? Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
NEA Role of Storage Storage is not one thing. There are different or multiple objectives • Radioactive decay and heat rate reduction R di i d d h d i • Logistic buffer within on ‐ going disposal • Interim until deep disposal available • Interim awaiting strategic decision on use of materials Whichever, the conditions of storage and hence costs, will be dependent on the objective. Any cost strategy for storage which does not say how long the storage is for, and what the next step will be, is reckless and will lead to more costs later is reckless and will lead to more costs later. Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Arguments Two housewives from Glaswegian tenements were shouting at each other about who could were shouting at each other about who could next use the washing line strung between their two opposite 5 th floor windows their two opposite 5 th floor windows. But it was obvious they would never agree – they were arguing from different premises! h i f diff i ! Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Assumptions behind cost estimates St Storage is an interim measure, requiring some kind of i i t i i i ki d f disposal eventually; but these later disposal costs are set aside in estimating the costs of storage Thus the set aside in estimating the costs of storage. Thus, the comparison sticks to the question in the assertion. Options are assumed to be implemented without Options are assumed to be implemented without accident; according to plan; within the law and meeting relevant regulatory requirements on safety. Storage introduces flexibility in later stages – but only the options evaluated in specific cost studies referenced are considered here Only the financial costs are included. E.g. the cost of the planned implicit health detriment is not included. l d l h l h d l d d Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Costing methodologies St Standard current discount rates...? d d t di t t ? Rates of return expected on government investment in infrastructure ? infrastructure...? Even the most rapid disposal programmes involve timescales beyond our capacity to estimate either timescales beyond our capacity to estimate either reliably... “The only way to make decisions is to pull numbers out The only way to make decisions is to pull numbers out of the air, call them 'assumptions' and calculate the net present value. p Of course, you have to use the right discount rate, otherwise it's meaningless.” Dilbert Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
US Spent Fuel and Yucca Mountain • Current disposal cost estimate 58 billion£ (USDOE) • Disposal commencing in 2025, or deferred 100y or Disposal commencing in 2025, or deferred 100y or 200y or indefinitely • Discount rates from 3 – 7% For 3% • Earliest disposal 2025: NPV cost: 31.7 billion $ Earliest disposal 2025: NPV cost: 31.7 billion $ • Indefinite storage cost: 7.5 billion $ • Intermediate costs for 100 200y deferral Intermediate costs for 100, 200y deferral • Savings are higher for higher discount rates The NPV cost of final disposal after 200y are The NPV cost of final disposal after 200y are ... 0. 0 Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Logistics Sensitivity Illustration: EPRI 1015046 EPRI 1015046 70,000 MTHM ‘authorised’ for Yucca Mountain. Is this enough...? Not if there is new build... Analysis of alternatives: • Larger area • Three instead of one layer • Three instead of one layer • Denser packing All found acceptable to varying degrees, allowing up to 570,000 MTHM Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Graham Smith
Recommend
More recommend
