Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

7.48
TABLE 7.6.3. Comparison of Total Waste Management Costs for the Program Alternatives
Using the Reprocessing Cycle,tal $ Billions
Proposed Program Alternative Program
Nuclear Power Growth (Geologic Disposal (Disposal Starting No-Action
Case Assumption Starting 1990 - 2010) 2010 - 2030) Alternative
1 Present Inventory Only NA(b) NA NA
2 Present Capacity and
Normal Life NA NA NA
3 250 GWe System by
Year 2000 and Normal
Life 59 to 90 58 to 90 NA
4 250 GWe System by
Year 2000 and Steady
State 87 to 108 89 to 104 NA
5 500 GWe System by Year 2040 114 to 146 116 to 137 NA
(a) Assumed reprocessing startup dates range from 1990 to 2010.
(b) NA = not applicable.
the alternative program than for the proposed or no-action alternatives. With the reproces-
sing cycle, the cost ranges are about the same for both the proposed and alternative
programs.
Costs for the program alternative are compared on the basis of levelized unit costs in
terms of mills/kWh at a 0% discount rate in Table 7.6.4 for the once-through cycle and
Table 7.6.5 for the reprocessing cycle. On this basis, unit cost ranges for the present
inventory case (Case 1) are much higher than the other cases because of the small quantity
of kilowatt-hours generated in this case relative to the fixed costs. With the present cap-
acity case (Case 2), the costs drop to about 1/3 of the Case 1 costs. For the once-through
cycle, the alternative program unit costs range higher than the proposed program and the no-
action alternative costs lie at the low end to mid-range of the proposed program cost
range. Costs are higher for the proposed program using the reprocessing cycle than are the
costs of the oncethrough cycle, but the cost range for the alternative program is almost
identical to the proposed program range.
When a discount rate larger than zero is used to calculate levelized costs, the differ-
ences between the proposed program and the alternative program and differences between once-
through and reprocessing cycles become less pronounced. This is shown in Tables 7.6.6 and
7.6.7, which compare the costs for the once-through cycle and the reprocessing cycle on the
basis of a 7% discount rate and in Tables 7.6.8 and 7.6.9, which compare the same cost
ranges on the basis of a 10% discount rate.
At a 7% discount rate, cost differences between the proposed program and the alterna-
tive program are not significant for either the once-through cycle or the reprocessing
cycle. Costs for the reprocessing cycle range mostly about 10% higher to as much as 30%
higher than for the once-through cycle.
At a 10% discount rate, as with a 7% rate, the cost differences between the proposed
program and the alternative program are not significant. The costs for the reprocessing
cycle range from slightly higher to as much as 15% higher than for the once-through cycle.