Nuclear Wastes Technologies for Separations and Transmutation (1996) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
J FUEL REPROCESSING ECONOMICS
J FUEL REPROCESSING ECONOMICS
Pages 413-446
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 413... ...
Successful implementation of this integrated reprocessing/irradiation strategy would require a major financial commitment to the development, design, construction, and operation of a series of reprocessing plants and transmutation reactors based largely on as-yet unproven technology. This appendix addresses various economic issues related to the use of transmutation as a primary waste management strategy, focusing primarily on future reprocessing costs under various plant ownership and financing arrangements.
|
From page 414... ...
From 1977 to 1979, the United States joined other nations in the International Fuel Cycle Evaluation to reconsider the commercial use of plutonium.
|
From page 415... ...
nuclear power plants transformed the earlier forecast of a shortage of enrichment capacity to a condition of oversupply, resulting in major price reductions for enrichment services due to intense competition. · The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of ~ 982 provided no economic incentive for HEW vitrification as opposed to direct disposal of spent fuel.
|
From page 416... ...
While transmutation proponents claim that this can be done as economically as a once-through filet cycle, the cost of reprocessing is a key factor in the cost of transmutation. Marshaling the management, technical, and financial resources to design, construct, and operate the reprocessing plants and specialty reactors to recycle and transmute TRUs and fission products is influenced by a number of major issues.
|
From page 417... ...
The GE estimates are based on PUREX aqueous technology, combined with new TRUEX technology for high-yield recovery of all TRUs. The capital costs developed in this section, and the operating costs developed in the section Reprocessing-Plant Operating Costs are therefore based on aqueous reprocessing technology.
|
From page 418... ...
THERMAL OXIDE REPROCESSING PLANT (THORP) The THORP reprocessing plant, which is located at the Sellafield site in the United Kingdom, is owned by British Nuclear Fuels, pie.
|
From page 419... ...
Despite the lessons learned on the design and construction of the UPS and THORP reprocessing plants, the constant dollar capital cost at Rokkashomura has not decreased significantly relative to these earlier plants. Reported capital costs for this facility range Tom $6,500 million (Chang, 1992)
|
From page 420... ...
Fuel Receipt and Storage Reprocessing Plant High-Leve! Waste Vitrification Interim storage Intermediate-Leve} Waste Encapsulation Interim storage Site Preparation and Services Site preparation Site services Total Capital Cost 1991 £ millions 1992 $ millions 100 2,300 260 59 300 38 229 11 3~297 5,370 Excludes interest during construction (see Table J-3~.
|
From page 421... ...
This is particularly difficult to rationalize considering that the study plants include new TRUEX separations and have annual throughputs two to three times higher than THORP, UPS, and Rokkashomura. Assuming that reprocessing plant capital costs are proportional to the 0.6 power of plant capacity, scaling the Gingold estimates to a 900-MTHM/yr capacity would result in a capital cost of $2,0 ~ O million for a goverrunent-owned facility and $2,210 million for a privately owned facility.
|
From page 422... ...
Interest During Construction Since both the THORP and UPS plants were financed largely through customer prepayments, it is the comm~ttee's understanding that the capital costs quoted in Table I-2 for these facilities do not include interest during construction. Financing costs for reprocessing plants are large because of the relatively long construction schedules.
|
From page 423... ...
bSincethis facility also provides fuel fabrication services, the unit capital cost for reprocessing only would be somewhat less than $2,300/lcgHM of annual plant throughput. CTHORP plant capacity Changed to 900 MTHM/yr in all cases.
|
From page 424... ...
FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES Converting capital costs expressed in foreign currencies to U.S. dollars introduces considerable uncertainty.
|
From page 425... ...
APPENDIX J- k UEL REPROCESSING ECONOMICS FIGURE J-1 Currency Exchange Rates 1983-1992. 3.5 Left Scale Marks, Yen, Pounds, ECU Rtoht Scale French Francs 10 ..
|
From page 426... ...
If not, the capital cost would have to be increased substantially (by 50 to 100% of the $374 million annual operating costs)
|
From page 427... ...
Private Venture There are clear precedents for private ownership of both electric power generating facilities and chemical process plants. The prime examples of privately owned power plants, other than those owned by electric utilities' are cogeneration plants.
|
From page 428... ...
If it were possible to finance a reprocessing/transmutation project in the private sector, the required after-tax return on equity would be greater than that of current cogeneration projects because of the much higher technical, financial, and politicaVinstitutional risks associated with nuclear projects, particularly one based largely on new technology such as pyrochemical reprocessing. The required constant dollar aDer-tax return on equity might range from 14-~°/0 as compared with ~ I-14°/0 for a cogeneration project.
|
From page 429... ...
As far as reprocessing is concerned, the above reference to "immature, unproven technology" refers primarily to pyrochemical rather than PUREX aqueous reprocessing, since the former is in an early stage of development, while the latter is relatively mature. However, even a reprocessing plant using PUREX aqueous technology combined with the newer TRUEX process for high-ye recovery of actin~des for transmutation would be unproven and difficult to finance.
|
From page 430... ...
concepts is difficult to conceive: · Since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 essentially relieves utilities of the responsibility for postirradiatiorl processing and permanent disposal of spent fuel, they currently have no incentive to get involved as an owner in a high-risk actinide-burning venture. · Politically sensitive public utility commissions would be unlikely to approve utilities entering into a TRU transmutation venture, particularly when the utilities have no legal requirement or financial incentive to do so.
|
From page 431... ...
ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS OF LWR REPROCESSING Unit reprocessing costs were calculated for government, utility, and privately owned reprocessing plants, based on the ground rules shown in Table I-5. The assumed return on common equity and interest on debt are expressed in after-tax, constant (inflation-Dee)
|
From page 432... ...
Annual Refurbishment Cost (%Jyr111 of initial capital cost) Financial Structure Common Stock (%)
|
From page 433... ...
GE did not report unit reprocessing costs, but using their capital cost of $5,976 million,
|
From page 434... ...
~ , ~ Figure I-2 also provides the current estimates of the unit costs for reprocessing plants constructed in the United States, which are derived from estimated costs for contemporary plants in the United Kingdom, France, and Japan. Financial parameters were applied for a private venture in the United States, assuming optimistically that the financing is characteristic of a low-risk project in the chemical industry.
|
From page 435... ...
Data shown in small circles are from Wolf and Judson (19831. Results of this study are for PUREX aqueous reprocessing based on data from France 0, Japan A, and the United Kingdom 0.
|
From page 436... ...
REPROCESSING-COST SENSITIVITY STUDIES Sensitivity studies of unit reprocessing costs were performed around the reference cases presented above to illustrate the impact of changes in assumed plant capital and operating cost, financing rate, financial structure, and currency exchange rate A plant throughput of 900 MAIM was used in all cases. Figures J-3, I-4 and I-S illustrate the sensitivity of unit reprocessing cost to variations in capital and operating cost for government, utility, and nonutiTity private-venture financing assumptions.
|
From page 437... ...
Capital cost includes interest during construction FIGURE I-4 Capital/Operating-Cost Sensitivity for a Utility-Owned Reprocessing Plant. Unit Reprocessing Cost ($/1cgHM)
|
From page 438... ...
2400 2200 2000 1 800 1 600 1 400 1200 Unit Reprocessing Cost ($/kgHM) r I I I I 0 20 40 60 Percent Cost Capital cost = Approximately $7 Million Includes interest during construction 80 1 00
|
From page 439... ...
Capital cost = Approximately $7 Million Includes interest during construction FIGURE I-8 Sensitivity to Currency Exchange Rate of a Government-Owned Reprocessing Plant. Unit Reprocessing Cost ($/kgHM)
|
From page 440... ...
The project assumes that the reprocessing facility will be centralized, high throughput, and financed by a private venture typical of low-risk ventures in the chemical industry. Comparing the threshold value of $350/kgHM with the estimated unit cost of a large private-venture reprocessing plant presented above in Estimated Unit Costs of Lam Reprocessing, the ANE IFR concept must be able to reduce the unit cost by a factor of about six below that based on contemporary costs for largescale aqueous reprocessing.
|
From page 441... ...
ANE Estimates of the Cost of Pyrochemical Reprocessing of ALMR Recycle Fuel The ANE IFR concept that a reprocessing plant for ALMR recycle fire} could be economically colocated with an ALMR power plant is challenged by cost analyses reported in GE's 1 99 1 fi~el-cycle assessment for the ALMR project (Taylor et al., 1991~. The estimated filrl-cycle cost is due to the costs of reprocessing and fabrication, less a credit of 2.0 milIs/kW h for uranium recovered in reprocessing EWR spent Mel, the uranium to be sold for reuse in fabricating EWR filet.
|
From page 442... ...
., · Capital costs are repeatedly underestimated for advanced chemical process facilities, just as they are for advanced energy process plants. Furthermore, the performance of advanced energy plants constantly fans short of what was predicted by designers and assumed in financial analyses.
|
From page 443... ...
Moreover, it is by no means certain that pyroprocessing will prove more economical than conventional aqueous reprocessing for which the technology is now relatively mature. The EWR reprocessing capital costs used in this study to develop life-cycle unit reprocessing costs were derived from information reported for the THORP, UPS, and Rokkashomura plants, all of which have an annual throughput of 800 to 900 MTHM/year.
|
From page 444... ...
Plant throughput was 900 MTHM/yr. The resulting levelized unit reprocessing costs are Owner/Operator Government Utility Private venture Unit Cost ($/k~HM 810 1,330 2,1 10 Based on the above comparisons, there is good reason to question the validity of all the recent U
|
From page 445... ...
1993. The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
|
From page 446... ...
1991. Fuel Cycle Assessment 1991.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.