Nuclear Plants - decommissioning costs - some specifics

[JohnWxy]

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/485/4813.html


"For example, decommissioning of the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant, closed in 1997, would start in 1998 and is planned to be completed in 10 years into greenfield condition. Decommissioning costs were first estimated at US$368 million, but inside two months cost estimates went up to US$508 million due to increased spent fuel storage costs. "

Cost estimates

Several studies have been made about the costs of decommissioning. The US NRC and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) made estimates of decommissioning costs which were 10 to 15 percent of original construction costs. These costs have the tendency to rise strongly. Data of nuclear facilities which are closed and have been or are being decommissioned, show much higher real decommissioning costs than estimated before.

One way to reduce these costs is to delay the process. This has been done in the United Kingdom, where the policy is adopted to wait 130 years before decommissioning is completed. French policy is to spread decommissioning over 50 years or more. The result is that only a relatively small amount of money has to be put aside now. Thinking goes that by getting interest on interest during (half) a century, the capital grows till it is enough to pay the decommissioning bill. The UK nuclear utilities also assume that decommissioning would become cheaper in the future as robot and decontamination technologies are being developed.

Financial disadvantages of this approach are:

costs of guarding or monitoring the site during 100 years or more are quite high;

the site cannot be sold or used for other purposes.

Recent developments in the US tend towards immediate decommissioning.

For example, decommissioning of the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant, closed in 1997, would start in 1998 and is planned to be completed in 10 years into greenfield condition. Decommissioning costs were first estimated at US$368 million, but inside two months cost estimates went up to US$508 million due to increased spent fuel storage costs.

Decommissioning examples

Many factors influence the cost of decommissioning: type of facility, size, period of decommissioning, volume of waste, costs of waste disposal, radioactivity, way of calculating and legal requirements for decontamination of the site.

Future nominal costs are much larger than real costs. For example, real decocommissioning costs of the 1150-MW US Seabrook NPP are estimated at US $324 million (in 1991 US dollars), but nominal costs when dismantlement begins in 2026 are estimated at US $1,600 million (in 2026 US dollars). Generally spoken, decommissioning of smaller nuclear reactors is more expensive than of larger ones, if expressed in dollars per MW. Many uncertainties exist and will remain for some decades, because no large reactors with normal operating lives (20-30 years) have been dismantled yet.

[Dead_Parrot]

1. Seabrook's decom. costs...

Should also be compared to the $30 billion worth of reliable electricity it will have produced by then, of course...

Edit: since we're considering wind/hydro in the other thread, I can also add that the Dinorwig pumped hydro cost $2 billion in today's money: The structure is planned to last 80 years, and the equipment 40 years (just for something to compare to).

[JohnWxy]

2. of course. NOw the decommissioning costs were estimated to be

$368 Million but were revised to $508 Million, a 38% increase. Applying that increase to the 1991 dollars estimate for decommissioning of $324 M ( * 1.38) yields: $447.3 M. That of course is just decommissioning costs. Does this include the costs of storing the nuclear waste for "x" years? ...Still don't know how many years to use. 2,500 years? Maintaining the site, recontainering, reprocessing. These will be sizeable numbers. Without some kind of an estimate of these costs we have a very big unknown there.

Now, the Union of Concerned Scientists site I provided a link to indicated storage and reprocessing costs would be considerable (in fact they said reprocessing would actually increase the amount of nuclear waste and increase the costs).

I don't know the answers to these questions. I just think we shouldn't leave significant inputs out.

Decommissioning costs (to repeat,..again) are not ALL the costs.

But of coursse, over and above the cost issue, i still have concerns about whether it's really possible to store the waste for ..2,500 yrs (got a better number?) without it getting into the environment. This seems like a pretty important consideration to me.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. Well, the Yankee plant is a good place to start,

since it looks like they've nearly finished. Annoyingly, http://www.yankeerowe.com/ don't give the actual cost on thier site but they must be out there somewhere...

As for geologic disposal being possible, Sweden have decided that the answer is yes, and started doing it: Other states are still mulling the possibilities and/or locations, with none of the brouhaha of Yucca Mtn. There's also a nice idea called "mix and return", where the material is 'watered down' to a low level waste, then buried in old uranium mines (so you can't tell the difference). Dropping the stuff into a subduction zone has also been mooted, but personally I think that's playing with fire a bit too much.

Probably the best ideas are those based on Integral fast reactors or sub-critcal reactors, which will take the long half-life tranuranics and antinides and spit out waste with much shorter half-lives, although NNadir would be the best one to comment on them - I'm on the edge of my knowledge here. But they get rid of the n-thousand-year problem and give you a more manageable n-decade problem, which seems like a good idea. I wouldn't like to second guess the cost, but the US ran an IFR for a while, so it's certainly a possibility.

[JohnWxy]

12. Union of Concerned Scientists postion on Reprocessing of Plutonium

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/extracting-plutonium-from-nuclear-reactor-spent-fuel.html

They make a number of points, one being security concerns, but here is an extract re the cost issue:

Reprocessing would be very expensive.

Reprocessing and the use of plutonium as reactor fuel is also far more expensive than using uranium fuel and disposing of the spent fuel directly—even if the fuel is only reprocessed once. In the United States, some 55,000 tons of nuclear waste have already been produced, and existing reactors add some 2,000 tons of spent fuel annually. Based on the experience of other countries, a commercial scale reprocessing facility with an annual throughput of about 1,000 tons of spent fuel would cost anywhere from $5 billion to $20 billion to build. A facility with twice that capacity would be needed to process the new spent fuel produced; taking into account economies of scale, it would cost from $7.5 to $30 billion, excluding operating costs. A second facility would be needed to also reprocess the existing spent fuel over a period of some 30 years.

[rfkrfk]

5. where does 30 billion, come from?

lets try some numbers

commodity electricity, recent times, USD 40 per megawatt-hour
try www.bloomberg.com for latest price

a typical instalaton, twin 500 megawatters, 30 years

40 . 1000 . 24 . 365 . 30y . --> 10.5 billion

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Ahh, well...

Not having a 110 Kv line into my house, I plumped for the domestic rate: Since solar and wind are usually priced the same way, it seemed reasonable.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Now here's funny...

If we do use $40 per MWh...

Each Wp of PV will generate 54,750 Wh (over a 25-year lifecycle and 25% efficiency. I'm feeling generous).
PV needed to produce 1MWh is 1,000,000/54,750 = 18.26 Wp
Cost per Wp: $5 (a bit low, but hey)
18.26 x $5 = $91.30... For $40 worth of power.

Someone run me through that pays-for-itself argument again, please? :D
Edit: actually, the 9c/KWh I used for the my original sum doesn't make it a whole lot better... Hey ho.

[rfkrfk]

10. consider 'avoided cost', in other countries

just for the record, I think that at 5 usd/peak-watt,
there might be some use for PV, if you look hard enough, but, consider...

the avoided cost for the individual consumer, is not the same
as the avoided cost to the country
...lets leave unnaccounted for 'external costs - pollution, for another thread..

in some poor country, with a coal fired boiler, the avoided
cost to society, might be around a penny per kilowatt hour

avoided cost would be different, if electrity is provided
by a diesel powered 'mom and pop' neighborhood electrical company

a side issue that never seems to be diccussed, is
that some of this 'PV and grid independence' thinking,
has the effect of letting the gov't off the hook,
in doing its job of helping the people get electricity.

[jpak]

13. 25 years is the warranty period - not the life time of PV modules

Most are warrantied to produce 80% of their nameplate Wp over 25 years.

They don't go *poof* after that.

Most are expected to have a productive lifetime of 40 years or more....

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Lots have 10 year warrenties...

and I've seen effective lifespans in the 15-20year range. My google didn't show anything specified to last 40 years, but then, that's why I'm being generous...

[jpak]

19. Here ya go

http://www.ecocentre.org.uk/solar-electricity.html

http://www.solarworksca.com/Faqs.html#m

http://www.sunpowergeo.com/solar_faqs.html

:)

[Dead_Parrot]

20. Cool.

...the commodity price still doesn't add up, but at least I'm not in the twilight zone with residential prices.

[JohnWxy]

6. of course, as a practical consideration we won't have to get into

pumped storage until we've hit 20% of our total electrical production from wind. Even though wind power is growing fast (limited by the wind turbine manufaacturers capacity) it's going to take a while to hit that proportion. It may pass nuclear in 15 yrs and we may see 20% in 20 yrs.

NOte that if wind farms were financed the way utilities finance coal and gas fired plants the cost of wind power would go down another 40%.

What about pumping water in an already existent reservoir - like hydro power plants with pumping set-up alreaady?

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Agreed, it's not a problem yet.

But since we're looking at long term plans, it needs to be considered. Dinorwig took 10 years to build, so you'd need to be looking at locations well in advance for any of the schemes - by the time the geology, environmental impact and sheer logistics have been evaluated, it doesn't leave much time to get the permissions and finance organised. If wind is going to play a key role for US energy, this needs to be considered now. Denmark didn't, and are now stuffed over it. Leaving storage until after the wind turbines are built will just result in loads of energy being produced when no-one is using it, and not enough when they are - a bit pointless.

Any existing reservoir will do, so long as it has another one next to it at a different height: In Dinorwig's case, 2x1.5million gallon pools sit next to each other, but one is ~1500 feet higher up the mountain. Finding hundreds of sites like this is going to quite a challenge, unless you're prepared to dig one of the pools (Dinorwig uses an old quarry & a natural lake).

I've said before - and doubtless will again - that wind & hydro is a good combination: None of the expense of a nuke/solar combo, none of the emissions of a coal/gas plan. The limiting factor is simply the geography: There's nowhere in florida, for instance, that you'll find two adjacent lakes with a vertical difference of 1000 ft +. Despite lots of hot air about hydrogen (and if only we could use that for power!) there is no storage in this sort of range: Even Dinorwig is a fraction of a percent of the capacity needed.

If there are suitable locations, I'll gladly shut and eat humble pie. But so far as I know, no-one's even looked.

I'll happily agree that subsidised coal should go: But I still maintain subsidised nukes are your best bet. :)

[JohnWxy]

14. Yes, planning is necessary (and unfortunately, a novel approach)

I don't think there's anywhere in Florida more than 10 ft higher than anywhere else in Florida. and of course, gradually the lower places will be disappearing so that figure will have to be revised to ...oh,,8 ft?

[JohnWxy]

15. Interesting post on redox flow cells for storing power from wind turbines

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_thread/thread/905b40bc119dc9f1/c472d685c409fc35

HEre is an interesting post about redox flow cells for storage of power from wind turbines:

Another battery option is the redox flow cell. This page,


http://www.ceic.unsw.edu.au/centers/vrb/webframe/vanart2a.htm


By the inventor of the vanadium redox battery (VRB), Dr. Maria
Skyllas-Kazacos , University of New South Wales, Sydney AU, gives a good
introduction to this system.


A shorter look can be had at:
http://www.sei.co.jp/sn/97_07.html


The redox system is a unique electrochemical storage system.
one of it's advantages is cost. From the first site:


"Cost estimates by the UNSW group and independent consulting groups (10,
11), place mass production costs at between $100 and $300 per kW for the
stack and $30 to $50 per kWh for the electrolyte."


For a large system,


" typical projected battery costs for 8 or more hours of storage being as
low as US$150 per kWh. "


Of all the options it appears that Redox is the cheapest. This becomes even
more apparent when it is considered that the redox battery has a virtually
unlimited lifespan.

Since all reactions take place in the liquid phase, there are no
irreversable chemical changes. The only part of the system that needs
regular replacing will be the membrane, perhaps every five years. The
battery is not damaged by deep discharge or by rapid charge rates and can be
configured such that off-gassing of H2 does not occur as is the case with
lead acid batteries. The efficiency is remakable, approaching 90%. Total
storage capacity can be sized independent of power by simply increasing or
decreasing the electrolyte volume or by increasing or decreasing the number
of flow cells. Charge and discharge can take place simultaneously and at
different voltages. This in effect makes the system a DC transformer. By
electronically monitoring system voltage and switching cells on and off as
needed, it is possible to track an optimum voltage for PV and wind
generating systems.

There is no energy lost with long term storage since the electrolytes are
stored separately. A feature that holds great promise for electric
transport is the ability to recharge a redox battery by replacing discharged
electrolyte with charged thus recharging an electric vehicle in the same
time it takes to fill a fuel tank on a conventional vehicle. The discharged
electrolyte can be recharged at off peak times from the grid. Instead of
gasoline tankers delivering energy to filling stations we can use the
electric grid.


Even without wind and solar redox makes sense for load leveling, for large
scale consumers of electric power such as heavy manufacturing who can
purchase power at times of low demand. Bulk energy storage will reduce or
end the need for expensive peaking generators by storing excess baseload
capacity in times of low demand. This will also allow more efficient
operation of baseload generators.


For windpower there is another benefit that may not be immediately apparent.
Having a means of storing energy will make it worthwhile to design machines
that can harvest power from higher but less frequent windspeeds. Presently
this would result in short term spikes of power.

The energy of wind increases with the cube of the velocity. There is a lot
of power out there that is presently too erratic to be useful. Having
storage allows this power to be salted away. Also, as wind turbines grow in
size and height they will be capturing energy in larger chunks so to speak,
storage will only increase the efficiency and utility of these machines.
It would appear that the vanadium redox battery is the best choice as a bulk
energy storage option. This combined with wind and solar may be our energy
future.

[JohnWxy]

16. MOre on Redox flow cells - for Fuel Cell cars ! interesting!

http://www.vrb.unsw.edu.au/


With high energy efficiencies of over 80% and a cycle life of greater than 16,000 cycles, the Vanadium Redox Flow Battery that was pioneered at the University of New South Wales has been shown to be superior to any other battery system currently available. Commercial installations have already been completed in several parts of the world for a range of stationary applications and full-scale manufacture has begun in Japan.



The unique feature of “instant recharge” by mechanical refuelling, also allows many benefits and much greater flexibility for electric vehicle applications so that market acceptance can be more readily achieved. VRB users would thus have the convenience of being able to either recharge their vehicles at home at night, or refuel any time of the day, the same way that they currently fill their tanks with gasoline or petrol. Unlike petrol, however, the vanadium solutions are never consumed, but can be recharged indefinitely. The spent solutions could thus be stored at the refuelling stations for recharging at night with off-peak electricity. The VRB recharging stations would thereby act as load-levelling systems, so that the need to build extra power stations to meet the increased power demand from electric vehicle charging would be deferred.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. Thanks, looks Interesting

Got some reading to do :)

[JohnWxy]

21. Vanadium redox flow batteries installed in U.S. added 15% to cost of wind

farm.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x47193

[hunter]

4. Leaving disused nuclear power plants where they are isn't unreasonable.

Building new nuclear power plants next to decommissioned plants assures there will be experts on hand to "mind the fort" and this plan reduces decommissioning costs considerably.

The idea that we must cut all old nuclear power plants apart, cart them away and bury them someplace else, while leaving the land they were sited on suitable for agriculture or housing development is not reasonable. Only the few power plants that were not carefully sited in the first place justify this extremely expensive sort of remediation.

If we choose to develop nuclear power we should do so with a clear understanding that we may be doing it for a very long time. There may be no other solution to large scale power generation for hundreds of years.

Maybe if we are lucky someone will develop fantastically cheap solar cells and high capacity batteries tomorrow, but I wouldn't bet our lives on it.

[NNadir]

11. I wish they'd done this with Shoreham.

We could just start it up and start saving lives tomorrow.

I feel terrible that I was involved (on the wrong side) in that debacle.