The Economics of Reprocessing versus Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Abstract

This report assesses the economics of reprocessing versus direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The breakeven uranium price at which reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from existing light-water reactors (LWRs) and recycling the resulting plutonium and uranium in LWRs would become economic is assessed, using central estimates of the costs of different elements of the nuclear fuel cycle (and other fuel cycle input parameters), for a wide range of range of potential reprocessing prices. Sensitivity analysis is performed, showing that the conclusions reached are robust across a wide range of input parameters. The contribution of direct disposal or reprocessing and recycling to electricity cost is also assessed. The choice of particular central estimates and ranges for the input parameters of the fuel cycle model is justified through a review of the relevant literature. The impact of different fuel cycle approaches on the volume needed for geologic repositories is briefly discussed, as are the issues surrounding the possibility of performing separations and transmutation on spent nuclear fuel to reduce the need for additional repositories. A similar analysis is then performed of the breakeven uranium price at which deploying fast-neutron breeder reactors would become competitive compared with a once-through fuel cycle in LWRs, for a range of possible differences in capital cost between LWRs and fast-neutron reactors. Sensitivity analysis is again provided, as are an analysis of the contribution to electricity cost, and a justification of the choices of central estimates and ranges for the input parameters. The equations used in the economic model are derived and explained in an appendix. Another appendix assesses the quantities of uranium likely to be recoverable worldwide in the future at a range of different possible future prices.iii

Break-Even Point Analysis of Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Capital Investment Cost Comparing the Direct Disposal Option and Pyro-Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Nuclear Fuel Cycle Option in Korea

“…Electricity generation cost can be divided into two main parts: reactor cost and nuclear fuel cycle cost [13]. Here, reactor costs include capital investment cost for reactor construction, reactor operation and maintenance costs, decontamination & decommissioning (D & D) costs, and disposal cost [14].…”

“…The amount of electricity generated from direct disposal (Once-through: OT) and the Pyro-SFR nuclear fuel cycle (for calculation of the electricity generation cost) is determined by Equations (4) and (5), respectively [13]. The PWR capital investment cost for the direct disposal option is provided by Equation (6) [16].…”

Plasma Mass Filters For Nuclear Waste Reprocessing

“…For example, a Japanese reprocessing plant in Rokkasho capable of reprocessing 800 MT per year cost $20 billion to construct. This works out to a reprocessing cost of $3750/kg, almost ten times the expected cost to directly dispose of HLW [13].…”

“…Therefore, the actinoids may be stored as potential fuel and the fission product can be immediately and permanently disposed of. For this to be economically productive, separation should cost less than about $200/kg [13]. This corresponds to a $2 billion budget to process 500 MT/year for 20 years, which is not unreasonable for the plasma devices described in Section III.…”

Economics and Resources Analysis of the Potential Use of Reprocessing Options by a Medium Sized Nuclear Reactor Fleet

“…This process has a significant impact on material flow. Some previous studies have aimed to assess the implications of implementing reprocessing for MOX fuel fabrication that can be applied to countries with a large sized nuclear reactor fleet [4,5]. However, for medium sized reactor fleets, these studies are generally not exhaustive (not taking into account practical issues, i.e., limitations in material stocks) or are focused only on one key sustainability indicator (either economy [5], use of resources, or waste minimization [2,6]), and so the combination of expenses, resources and waste generation are not totally described.…”