Reprocess or not ? A question of cost

April 19, 2012

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel would cost more than burying part of it

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20120419p2a00m0na014000c.html

Reprocessing the entire amount of spent nuclear fuel generated at nuclear power plants across Japan would cost more than burying part of such fuel underground, an estimate by the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) has shown.

A subcommittee to JAEC, which is tasked with reviewing the country's nuclear fuel cycle policy, revealed the estimate on April 19. The subcommittee calculated the total project costs for disposing of spent nuclear fuel by 2030 and concluded that the so-called concurrent method -- in which spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed while partially disposed of underground if nuclear power plants remain in operation -- would cost the least.

It is the first time that a government body has presented the estimated costs for the nuclear fuel cycle in accordance with different policy patterns in the future, including a departure from nuclear power generation. Based on the calculation, the subcommittee will file a report on the estimates and their feasibility with the government's Energy and Environment Council as early as in May so they could serve as a policy option. The council is then expected to reflect the estimates in its medium- and long-term energy strategy.

The subcommittee calculated the operational costs for each of the three methods -- (a) reprocessing the entire amount of spent nuclear fuel; (b) directly disposing of the entire volume of such fuel; and (c) combined use of the aforementioned two methods. The cost for the (b) method includes expenses for decommissioning a reprocessing plant.

The subcommittee then compared the estimated costs depending on the following three energy source patterns -- (1) the ratio of nuclear power generation in the country's electricity output is 35 percent in 2030; (2) 20 percent in 2030; and (3) 0 percent in 2020.

As a result, it was found that in patterns (1) and (2), using the (c) method will cost the least at 8.1 trillion yen to 9.1 trillion yen, with spent nuclear fuel reprocessed at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant in Aomori Prefecture while part of such fuel is directly disposed of. The cost is cheaper than applying the (a) method -- in which the entire amount of spent nuclear fuel is recycled at a cost of 8.3 trillion to 9.7 trillion yen -- or the (b) method -- in which the entire volume of such fuel is directly disposed of at a cost of 10.3 trillion to 11.9 trillion yen, according to the subcommittee. The subcommittee explained that the (c) method would cost the cheapest because it does not require the expenses to decommission a reprocessing plant and because the cost for reprocessing spent fuel is cheaper than the (a) method.

In the meantime, if pattern (3) -- in which Japan breaks away from nuclear power generation -- becomes true, it will only cost 6.7 trillion to 7.1 trillion yen for directly disposing of the entire amount of spent nuclear fuel, because the amount of spent nuclear fuel generated at nuclear power plants will be reduced and because there will no longer be the necessity to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

In either of the patterns, the cost for the (b) method -- directly disposing of the entire amount of spent fuel -- includes 4.7 trillion yen as the cost for a "policy change," such as decommissioning the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant and a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel plant planned by Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. If that cost is excluded, the (b) method will cost significantly cheaper than other disposal methods regardless of whichever of the three energy policy patterns is adopted, at 2 trillion to 6.9 trillion yen.