The Economics of Direct Disposal v. Reprocessing and Recycle

Transcription

1 The Economics of Direct Disposal v. Reprocessing and Recycle Steve Fetter School of Public Policy, University of Maryland Matthew Bunn, John P. Holdren, Bob van der Zwaan Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

2 Direct-disposal v. Reprocessing-Recycle Is it better to dispose of spent fuel directly in geologic repositories, or reprocess it to recover and recycle the plutonium and uranium? This question is receiving renewed attention, because of concerns about: accumulations of spent fuel and separated plutonium the capacity of geologic repositories the long-term future of nuclear power links between the civilian nuclear fuel cycle and the proliferation of nuclear weapons

3 Our Study Focused on Costs Cost is an important element in this debate not the only (or most important) factor; environmental, security, and wastemanagement concerns also important General agreement that reprocessing-recycle is more expensive than direct-disposal today Advocates argue that difference is small, will disappear soon if nuclear power grows We conclude that cost difference is significant and is likely to persist for years

4 Outline 1. Direct-disposal v. reprocessing-recycle in LWRs difference in cost of electricity breakeven uranium price 2. Direct disposal in LWRs v. recycle in FBRs 3. Uranium resources and prices when will uranium price reach the breakeven price for reprocessing-recycle? 4. Impact of reprocessing-recycle on repository requirements

5 Direct Disposal v. Reprocessing in LWRs LEU fuel LEU spent LEU START HERE UF 6 Conversion spent LEU U 3 O 8 spent MOX spent MOX MOX fuel spent LEU ru Interim Storage Repository DU Pu HLW and ILW Conversion UF 6

6 Direct Disposal v. Reprocessing in LWRs $250/kg LEU fuel LEU $100/SWU UF 6 Conversion $6/kg U 3 O 8 $200/kg spent LEU spent LEU $400/kg spent MOX spent MOX MOX fuel spent LEU ru Interim Storage Repository $200/kg $1500/kg Pu $1000/kg HLW (and ILW) $6/kg DU Conversion UF 6

7 Direct Disposal v. Reprocessing in LWRs $250/kg LEU fuel LEU $100/SWU spent LEU UF 6 Conversion $6/kg U 3 O 8 $200/kg spent LEU $400/kg spent MOX spent MOX MOX fuel spent LEU ru Interim Storage $800/kg $200/kg Repository $1500/kg DU $2700/kg Pu $1000/kg $3000/kg HLW (and ILW)

8 For central values of the price of fuel-cycle services and other parameters, we calculate the difference in the cost of electricity (COE), for a given uranium price the uranium price for which the cost of electricity would be the same for both options (the breakeven price ) breakeven prices for other fuel-cycle services (e.g., reprocessing)

9 COE Premium for Reprocessing-Recycle 4 $2000 kghm 1 = reprocessing price!coe (mill kwh 1 ) $1500 kghm 1 $1000 kghm 1 $500 kghm Price of Uranium ($ kgu 1 )

10 Breakeven Prices assuming central values of other parameters Parameter Breakeven best central worst Uranium ($/kg) Reprocessing ($/kg) MOX fabrication ($/kg) < Interim fuel storage Disposal cost difference Enrichment ($/SWU)

11 Breakeven U Price v. Reprocessing Price

12 4 COE Premium for C u = $130/kg 3!COE (mill/kwh) 2 1 worst case for reprocessing best case for reprocessing Price of Reprocessing ($/kg)

13 These estimates are favorable to reprocessing Central values of reprocessing and MOX fuel fabrication are well below recent prices No charge included for Pu storage, Am removal, licensing or security for MOX use Expensive interim storage included for directdisposal Disposal cost savings for HLW higher than other estimates Equal disposal costs for spent MOX and LEU

14 LWR (direct disposal) v. FBR LEU fuel LEU UF 6 Conversion U 3 O 8 spent LEU Interim Storage Repository Pu ru MA HLW, ILW DU Conversion UF 6

15 COE Premium for FBR

16 Breakeven Prices assuming regulated utility ownership Parameter Breakeven best central worst Uranium ($/kg) Capital Cost Difference Reprocessing ($/kg) < Interim fuel storage Disposal cost difference Enrichment ($/SWU)

17 Breakeven U Price v. Capital Cost Difference

18 COE Premium for C u = $130/kg

19 Uranium Resources Breakeven U prices using central values: $340/kg (FBR) $370/kg (LWR) Breakeven U price > $130/kg even in best case How much is available? Red Book gives 16 Mt available at $130/kg or less, but high-cost resources in many countries (e.g., Australia) not estimated; unconventional resources (e.g., phosphates) not included; little investment in exploration

20 A Very Rough Estimate of Ultimately Recoverable Uranium Resources Red Book give 2.1 Mt at $40/kg (~current price) Hore-Lacy: a doubling of price from present levels could be expected to create a tenfold increase in measured resources. So there should be 21 Mt available at $80/kg and 210 Mt at $160/kg! " p # R = 2.1$ 40 % & ' ε = long-term price elasticity of supply

21 Deffeyes and MacGregor (1980) On average, a 10-fold decrease in ore grade is associated with a 300- fold increase in available resource

22 Recoverable Resources Source Longterm elasticity of supply ε MtU recoverable at price less than $40 $80 $130 UIC (doubling price creates ten-fold increase in measured resources) Deffeyes and MacGregor (ten-fold decrease in concentration = 300-fold increase in resource, p ~ c) Gen-IV (based on U.S. reserves for various mining methods) Red Book

23 IIASA/WEC Global Energy Perspectives Nuclear Electricity Production Scenarios

24 Cumulative Uranium Consumption LWRs with Direct Disposal (19 tu/twh)

25 Other Considerations Repository space Energy security Nonproliferation Public and environmental health

26 Repository Space Can reprocessing substantially reduce need for new repositories? Recycle in LWRs: no buildup of minor actinides increases decay heat per kwh Recycle in FRs with minor actinides : yes, but reprocessing, fabrication more expensive Gen-IV: $2000/kg reprocessing, $2600/kg core fuel if C U = $130/kg: ΔCOE = 6 mill/kwh if ΔC cap = $0 16 mill/kwh if ΔC cap = $200/kW e

27 Repository Space Repository space is scarce because of political barriers to new repositories, but most countries can greatly expand repository capacity without new site (but not US) some countries may accept foreign waste, given very high willingness to pay for service political barriers to separation and transmutation are unlikely to be smaller than barriers to new repositories, especially given much greater near-term risks

28 Energy Security Large number of uranium suppliers ensures an open and competitive world market Canada, US, Australia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, South Africa Establishing a strategic uranium reserve would cost less than reprocessing 1 mill/kwh sufficient to fund a 20-year supply of uranium

29 Nonproliferation Once-through fuel cycle is generally regarded as being the most proliferation-resistant Pu in spent fuel can be recovered only by reprocessing; radiation provides selfprotection for hundreds of years Enrichment plants relatively easy to safeguard Recycle fuel cycles pose larger risks: Theft of separated Pu in storage, fresh MOX Reprocessing plants difficult to safeguard Risks associated with enrichment, spent fuel avoided only with FBRs and full MA recycle

30 Public and Environmental Health Except for accidents, radiation doses to public are very low for both fuel cycles Reprocessing and recycling does not significantly reduce the risks from waste disposal risks usually dominated by long-lived, watersoluble fission products (Tc-99, I-129) Reprocessing and recycling reduces risks from uranium mining, but increases risks from accidents (at reactors and reprocessing plants)

31 Backup Slides

32 Calculating Breakeven Uranium Price

33 Simple Example Direct Disposal Interim storage of SF Geologic disposal of SF Reprocessing-Recycle Reprocessing Geologic disposal of HLW, ILW Recovered U (0.95 kg U /kg HM ) Recovered Pu (0.01 kg Pu /kg HM ) Cost ($/kg HM ) $200 $400 $600 $1000 $ C ru 0.01C Pu $ C ru 0.01C Pu

34 Value of Plutonium LEU Cost Quantity Unit Cost Cost ($/kg) Uranium Conversion 7 kg 7 kg C U $6/kg 7C U $42 Enrichment 6 SWU $100/SWU $600 Fabrication 1 kg $250/kg $250 MOX Cost DU Plutonium Fabrication If C LEU = C MOX : 0.94 kg 0.06 kg 1 kg C Pu $1500/kg $ C u $6/kg $6 0.06C Pu $1500 $ C Pu

35 Breakeven U Price Assume C ru C U A more precise calculation gives $370/kg ~8 times the current spot price

36 Other Parameters Parameter best central worst LEU fuel fabrication ($/kg) Conversion ($/kg) Spent-fuel burnup (MWd/kg) Fresh-fuel burnup (MWd/kg) Discount rate (%/y) Laser enrichment yes no no Premiums for recovered U Conversion ($/kg) Enrichment ($/SWU) Fabrication ($/kg)

37 COE Premium for Reprocessing-Recycle

38 Reprocessing Cost Central value = $1000/kg (range: 500 to 2000) includes SF transport; interim storage of SF, Pu, HLW; disposal of LLW; decommissioning Thorp, UP3: baseload: $ /kg post-baseload: $ $ /kg Rokkasho-Mura: $4000/kg Using reported Thorp capital, operating costs: $1350 (govt), $2000 (utility), $3100 (private)

39 MOX Fuel Fabrication Central value = $1500/kg (range: 700 to 2300) no extra costs for fuel transport or use at reactors 1990s prices: $ /kg Using SMP reported capital and operating costs: $1000 (govt), $1500 (utility); $2100 (private)

40 Interim Spent-fuel Storage Central value = $200/kg (range: 100 to 300) Cost estimates: at-reactor dry storage: $ /kg dry storage at other sites: $ /kg centralized facility, Japan: $280/kg IS would not be required at new reactors with lifetime storage capacity, or after opening of repository

41 Disposal Cost Difference Spent Fuel HLW SF HLW % savings This study % % 1993 OECD study % 2000 French study % Gen IV study % 1 mill/kwh = $370/kg at discharge if burnup = 43 MWd/kg

42 Breakeven U price Parameter Value (central = $340/kgU) Parameter low central high low high Capital cost difference ($/kw e) Reactor owner govt utility private Reprocessing cost ($/kghm) Enrichment ($/SWU) change compared to central LMR core fabrication ($/kghm) ±54 LMR breeding ratio ±46 Geological disposal cost difference ($/kghm) ±18 LEU burnup (MW t d/kghm) Construction time (yr) ±15 LMR blanket fab. ($/kghm) ±15 LEU fuel fabrication ($/kghm) ±13

43 Uranium Prices