Cost Comparison of Spent Fuel Storage and Deep Geological Disposal

Transcription

1 Unstable, Carbon Constrained dworld Cost Comparison of Spent Fuel Storage and Deep Geological Disposal GMS Abingdon Ltd

2 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 l disposal of the sort associated with a. Yucca Mountain b. a proposed European site. That there would be merit in giving the utilities which 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. :

3 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 Waste. NEA OECD, 2006 Costing methodologies. EC TREN/05/NUCL/S Cost Estimates for Disposal of Spent Fuel from New Build Reactors in the UK. Chapman and McCombie. MCM TR 06 01, 2006 Uranium and Plutonium: Macro Economic Study. UK NDA, Spent Fuel Management: Life Cycle Analysis Model. UK NDA, September 2007 Yucca Mountain Licence Support Network ( More in accompanying paper :

4 What costs, who pays, who benefits? Risks of action... and inaction Will I 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 Carbon Constrained World :

5 Perspective on risk... Spent Fuel Storage NW Russia Would you pay for this to be done better? :

6 Perspective on benefits... Making the world a safer place for democracy. Did MAD work? Does it still? Are we in fact, still enjoying the benefit? :

7 Pros and Cons: Disposal Pros Major hazard reduced sooner, honestly.. It says so on the label! Liability is managed and controlled in shorter timescale... by the generation (or so) that caused the problem. (IAEA Safety Fundamental principle.) Cons Other management options foreclosed Political uncertainties in being able to deliver the option... You might decide to do it and then fail... :

8 Pros Pros and Cons: Storage Option remains open for re use of materials And to develop safer disposal, or other final solution Cons Major hazard left on the surface... accidents misuse of material later by the owner or others degradationofstore of 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!!!

9 NEA Stepwise Approach... is meant to help build closer ties between the radioactive waste management and the social science communities, contributing to thereflection on stepwise decision making through the provision of several perspectives supported by an extensive set of references. Stepwise decision making allows for reversibility of decisions. What does this mean for confidence in cost estimates?

10 NEA Role of Storage Storage is not one thing. There are different or multiple objectives Rdi Radioactive i decay and heat rate reduction 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.

11 Arguments Two housewives from Glaswegian tenements wereshouting at each otherabout who could next use the washing line strung between their two opposite 5 th floor windows. But it was obvious they would never agree they were arguing from different premises!

12 Assumptions behind cost estimates Storage is an interim i measure, requiring ii some kind of disposal eventually; but these later disposal costs are set aside in estimating the costs of storage. Thus, the comparison sticks to the question in the assertion. Options areassumed 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 hdetriment is not included. d

13 Costing methodologies Standard d current discount rates...? Rates of return expected on government investment in infrastructure...? Even the most rapid disposal programmes involve timescales beyond our capacity to estimate either reliably... The only way to make decisions is to pull numbers out of the air, call them 'assumptions' and calculate the net present value. Of course, you have to use the right discount rate, otherwise it's meaningless. Dilbert

14 US Spent Fuel and Yucca Mountain Current disposal cost estimate 58 billion (USDOE) 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 $ Indefinite storage cost: 7.5 billion $ Intermediate costs for 100, 200y deferral Savings are higher for higher discount rates The NPV cost of final disposal after 200y are... 0.

15 Logistics Sensitivity Illustration: EPRI ,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 Denser packing All found acceptable to varying degrees, allowing up to 570,000 MTHM

16 Disposal Cost: UK New Build Range of current costs for stand alone alone direct disposal of new build spent fuel for a UK programme of 10 APRs operating for 60 years is from $6.5 billion to $7.2 billion. Management costs based on UK, Swedish, Swiss and Belgian historic data. Unit cost would be lower if legacy HLW were co disposed. Twice mass of spent fuel increases costs by 50%. 0.2 cents per kwh on going generates $10 billion after 60 years, with no interest accrued. Sufficient funds for the entire disposal programme generated after 30 years (c.f. the 60 year programme) assuming a 2.5% interest rate on deposits. The interim storage programmeoverover 60years represents only a small fraction of the total spent fuel management programme, i.e. 22% on Swedish model; 9% on the Swiss.

17 U Pu, an Asset or Liability? Study for UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 3 Bounding scenarios Waste : No further development of nuclear power, uranium prices low and all the materials are disposed of as soon as a repository can be constructed. Storage: places all materials into long term storage assuming value in the future, but after 300 years this has not been the case, so the materials are then disposed of. Use : materials have value now, uranium used in new fuel, Pu used in MOX, spent fuel reprocessed, with product used in programme of 12 GW, running for 60 years, followed by a fast reactor programme on the same scale, and disposal of all wastes at 300 years. Logistical variants on the storage and use options.

18

19 Who best to manage civilian spent fuel? Responsibility for spent fuel management is best given to a central national agency, not left to a set of disparate waste producers who may not have the same long term goals or capacities to ensure delivery. NEI note TAD canister program dropped in 97 Uncertainties in final repository design Uncertainties in program funding Bureaucratic impediments Lack of market diversity But the pricing situation has improved in a renewed programme (circa 2005) with competitive tendering and reasonable confidence in a repository design. Similar DOE experience in legacy site management. Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World

20 Conclusions 1 Storage v Disposal is the wrong contest! It should be Disposal As Soon As Possible (ASAP) v Planned Storage and Disposal Later. Since Disposal ASAP still needs interim storage, the real questions are how long to store for, and what cost, logistical i lor other advantages can be taken from an extended storage period? Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World

21 Conclusions 2 Storage is not one thing. There are different or multiple objectives. The conditions of storage and hence costs will be dependent on the objective. Don t unthinkingly comparecosts costs for strategies which have different objectives! Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World

22 Conclusions 3 New technology will not make things massively safer at least according to designs, all realistic options are already reasonably safe. Early action introduces some risks in solving the problem, but indefinite storage will introduce long term risks, as well as shifting responsibility. Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World

23 Implementation of different actions No Action Level of Risk Risk during implementation Ati Action 1 Action 3 Action Time Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World

24 Conclusions 4 All strategies present costs which are small c.f. the overall cost to the power user. Assuming discount rates commonly used in financial planning, storage is cheaper than disposal. There are important continuing uncertainties which hneed to be explored, but they only present possible ranges in costs which are still only marginal to the power user. These uncertainties arise from socio economic and political factors. Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World

25 Conclusions 5 Planning long term operations with very hazardous material like spent nuclear fuel needs a central and strong authority. However, management models should be adopted which allow for transparent technical and financial over site, involving waste producers and independent technical expertise. Both assertions raised in the introduction are true, subject to the assumptions also set out. Furthermore, these assertions are robust to the many technical and other uncertainties. Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World

26 Major Uncertainties 1 Discount rates Store it for ever, invest a penny now and pay the storage costs at the restaurant at the end of the universe... Hmmm? Technology Developments Improved disposal Cure for cancer Anti proliferation techniques Logistical variants within any option

27 Major Uncertainties 2 Energy policy developments Pu/U become resources not waste Carbon imperative Knowledge of very low level radiation risks Is the actual risk residing in relatively few individuals in the population? Is there a threshold to radiation risks... Or not? :

28 Socio political questions Have the security costs been included? Does involving a wider set of stakeholders lead to safer, or better, solutions? How do you cost social compensation? How can one integrate the inputs to the decision? How do you recognise virtue? (Justify your answers...) Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World NPEC 5 November

29 Risk and benefit assessments! Classical Probability of Success (POS) Probability of Failure (1-POS) Lack of knowledge not differentiated Evidence based reasoning Evidence for Remaining Evidence against Success Uncertainty Success 0.28 Based on supporting evidence Based on refuting evidence Shows what is not known Plausible either supported by evidence or unknown Evidence-based reasoning differentiates the Remaining Uncertainty from the evidence against success. Allows better analysis of how to tackle the remaining uncertainty. Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World