Cost Comparison of Spent Fuel Storage and Deep Geological Disposal

(1)

Commercial Nuclear Energy in an Unstable,

C b C i d W ld

Carbon Constrained World

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

Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008 Graham Smith

(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

t l ti t h l th d l i l

remote location, cost much less than deep geological 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.

Unstable, Carbon Constrained World Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel: Prague, March 2008 Graham Smith

(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

• 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…

(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 Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel: Prague, March 2008

Graham Smith

(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 democracy.

Did MAD work?

Does it still?

Are we in Are we in fact, still enjoying the benefit?

(7)

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...

(8)

Pros and Cons: Storage

Pros Pros

• Option remains open for re‐use of materials

• And to develop safer disposal, or other ‘final’ solutionp 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!!!

(9)

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 Unstable, Carbon Constrained World

Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel

Graham Smith Prague, March 2008

(10)

NEA Role of Storage

Storage is not one thing. There are different or multiple objectives

R di i d d h d i

• Radioactive 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

is reckless and will lead to more costs later.

(11)

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 –

h i f diff i !

they were arguing from different premises!

(12)

Assumptions behind cost estimates

St i i t i i i ki d f

Storage is an interim measure, requiring some kind of 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

l d l h l h d l d d

planned implicit health detriment is not included.

(13)

Costing methodologies

St d d t di t t ?

Standard current discount rates...?

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

(14)

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 0 The NPV cost of final disposal after 200y are ... 0.

(15)

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

• 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 direct disposal of new

• Range of current costs for stand‐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%

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 programme over 60 years represents only a

• The interim storage programme over 60 years 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

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

3 Bounding scenarios

• Waste : No further development of nuclear power uranium

• 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.

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.y

Logistical variants on the storage and use options.

(18)

(19)

Who best to manage civilian spent fuel?

R ibilit f t f l t i b t i t

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‐

waste producers who may not have the same long term goals or capacities to ensure delivery.

NEI note TAD canister program dropped in ‘97 NEI note TAD canister program dropped in 97

– Uncertainties in final repository design – Uncertainties in program funding

B ti i di t

– Bureaucratic impediments – Lack of market diversity

But the pricing situation has improved in a renewed 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.

Carbon Constrained World Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel Prague, March 2008

Graham Smith

(20)

Conclusions 1

Storage v Disposal is the wrong contest! It should be Disposal As Soon As Possible (ASAP) v

be Disposal As Soon As Possible (ASAP) v Planned Storage and Disposal Later.

l ll d

Since Disposal ASAP still needs interim storage, the real questions are how long to store for,

d h l i i l h d

and what cost, logistical or other advantages can be taken from an extended storage period?

Graham Smith

(21)

Conclusions 2

Storage is not one thing. There are different or multiple objectives.

The conditions of storage and hence costs will be g dependent on the objective.

Don’t unthinkingly compare costs for strategies which Don t unthinkingly compare costs for strategies which

have different objectives!

Graham Smith

(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

p , g

long term risks, as well as shifting responsibility.

Graham Smith

(23)

Implementation of different actions

No Action

f Risk

No Action

Risk d i

Level of

A ti 1 during

implementation

Action 1 Action 2 Action 3

Time

2000 2002 2004 2006 2030

Graham Smith

(24)

Conclusions 4

All strategies present costs which are small c f the All strategies present costs which are small c.f. the

overall cost to the power user.

Assuming discount rates commonly used in Assuming discount rates commonly used in

financial planning, storage is cheaper than disposal

disposal.

There are important continuing uncertainties

h h d b l d b h l

which need to be explored, but they only

present possible ranges in costs which are still

l l h

only marginal to the power user.

These uncertainties arise from socio‐economic and political factors.

Graham Smith

(25)

Conclusions 5

Planning long term operations with very hazardous Planning long term operations with very hazardous

material like spent nuclear fuel needs a central and strong authority

and strong authority.

However, management models should be adopted which allow for transparent technical and

which allow for transparent technical and

financial over‐site, involving waste producers and independent technical expertise

and independent technical expertise.

Both assertions raised in the introduction are true,

b h l

subject to the assumptions also set out.

Furthermore, these assertions are robust to the many technical and other uncertainties.

Graham Smith

(26)

Major Uncertainties 1

Di t t

• 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 Improved disposal

– Cure for cancer

A ti lif ti t h i

– Anti proliferation techniques

• Logistical variants within any option

(27)

Major Uncertainties 2

• Energy policy developments

Pu/U become resources not waste – 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 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 do you cost social compensation?

• How can one integrate the inputs to the decision?

decision?

• How do you recognise virtue?

(Justify your answers...)

Carbon Constrained World Storage v Disposal of Spent Fuel NPEC 5 November 2007 1 Graham Smith

(29)

Risk and benefit assessments!

Probability of

Success (POS) Failure (1-POS) Probability of

Lack of knowledge

Probability of

Success (POS) Failure (1-POS) Probability of

Lack of knowledge

Evidence for Remaining Evidence against

Classical Lack of knowledge

not differentiated

0 . 0 0 3 2 .0 0 6 8 .0 0

Evidence for Remaining Evidence against

Classical Lack of knowledge

not differentiated

0 . 0 0 3 2 .0 0 6 8 .0 0

Evidence for Success

g Uncertainty

g Success

Evidence based reasoning

Shows what is not known

0 . 4 2 0 .3 0

0 .2 8 Evidence for

Success

g Uncertainty

g Success

Evidence based reasoning

Shows what is not known

0 . 4 2 0 .3 0

0 .2 8

Based on supporting evidence

Based on refuting evidence

reasoning

Plausible – either supported

b id k

Based on supporting evidence

Based on refuting evidence

reasoning

Plausible – either supported

b id k

Evidence-based reasoning differentiates the Remaining Uncertainty from the evidence against success Allows better analysis of how to tackle the remaining uncertainty

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

by evidence or unknown

success. Allows better analysis of how to tackle the remaining uncertainty.

Graham Smith