Nuclear power has accounted for 20% of U.S. electricity generation each year since 1990. But even with climate concerns and global movement to reduce CO2 emissions, the market does not reward zero-carbon nuclear power generation or its reliability. More than a quarter of U.S. nuclear power plants will not make enough money to cover their operating costs, raising the risk of more people retiring early.
Exelon Dresden nuclear power station near Morris, Illinois as it appeared shortly thereafter … [+]
DOE
These retirements have two important impacts on the use or consumption of on-site nuclear fuel:
– spent nuclear fuel is now an orphan
– the power stations no longer provide power and receive the income that would pay for the storage and monitoring of their nuclear fuel, and will no longer pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund designed to take care of their ultimate distribution.
The 1982 NWPA established a levy of 1 mill (1/10-cent) per kWh of electricity generated by commercial nuclear power plants. These must be paid for by nuclear facilities with standard contracts and invested in the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is a separate account in the U.S. Department of the Treasury. But in 2014, the federal government stopped collecting the Nuclear Waste Fund tax after a successful legal battle waged by several states and the commercial nuclear industry as a result of the Yucca Mountain Project’s cessation.
The NWFund still collects interest at around $ 2 billion / year. The latest Nuclear Waste Energy Asset Fee Assessment Report, which sets out the best estimates of how well the NWFund can handle the entire nuclear waste disposal program for the next 100 years or so. Future revenue was based on nuclear energy production, no new license extensions were extended, no new construction was built after 2012, and the 1 mill / kWh charge was reduced. mach.
These assumptions may not be correct. Most of the existing fleet has received one 20-year extension, and the other half is likely to receive another 20-year extension. The future of SMRs in the 2020s will also alter nuclear generation.
Against this, the current wave of premature reactor shutdown is caused by economic and political pressures in unregulated energy markets.
Since 2012, a dozen commercial reactors have shut down in the United States with approximately 10,348 MW of capacity (Table 1), losing more than a trillion kWh from the expected life of accepting one license extension for half of them and two license extensions for the other half.
Twenty-seven additional reactors have been announced for closure by 2025 with approximately 27,203 MW of capacity (Table 2), or approximately 4 trillion kWh from previously anticipated life. While they are all expected to close by 2026, no closing dates have been set for some reactors.
Recent and possible closure of nuclear power plants.
Conca
These closures represent more than $ 8 billion in NWFund’s original revenue from lost taxes. Using the DOE’s estimated final total principle of $ 55 billion in the NWFund when the nuclear fleet is completely shut down, this lost toll from a premature shutdown represents about 15% of the NWFund.
In addition to lost tolls, those prematurely closed reactors do not provide as much fuel. Given the high level of maintenance observed at almost all reactors, it is reasonable to assume for computational purposes that they would all have received another license extension, bringing their useful life to 80 years. If most close after just 40 years or so, the amount of waste they produce will be around 50% of what would have been produced. If you assume a 60-year life, as in most DOE projections, the total amount of waste they do will be about 75% of what would be done.
These are major changes and affect any final cost and final reserve. However, these impacts are not linear, as there are many costs that are not directly tracked by the volume of waste such as resale preparation and original construction, waste storage at reactor sites or at secured interim storage facilities, modeling and inspection, surface structures, general administration and management costs, licensing costs, decommissioning and closure costs, and necessary personnel.
The EIA estimates that, from 2018 through 2050, 9.1 GW of nuclear capacity will be added, plus a further 4.7 GW of additional nuclear capacity as a result of uprates. However, in anticipation of this additional 9.1 GW of nuclear capacity, it is expected to release 35 GW of nuclear capacity from 2018 through 2050, in particular those planned to close by 2026 on the listed in Table 2.
It should be noted that the high-level protective waste (HLW) generated by arms production accounts for about one-third of the waste distributed in any final source in this century. In past life cycle cost estimates, DOE has assumed that Congress would allocate funding through protected nuclear waste allowances (i.e. from taxpayers, not taxpayers) to to cover about 20 percent of the costs. This debate will only cover the funding from the taxes paid by ratepayers and collected by the commercial nuclear industry as there are no rules or legislation governing DOE protective waste disposal support.
The results of the Tax Eligibility Assessment, which sought to take account of inflation and economic forecasting, did not show strong evidence that insufficient or insufficient income was accumulating to ensure that the federal government reimbursed these costs. The difference in estimates was staggering, ranging from a negative termination balance of $ 2 trillion to a positive termination balance of $ 4.9 trillion.
The folding in the premature closure of the reactor that could remove 15% from the NWFund, or the additional permit extensions that could add 20% to the Nuclear Waste Fund, do not change the conclude that we cannot assign meaningful probability to any of these economic predictions. And there is no indication that these effects should alter the current amount of tax.
Predicting the economic trends controlling the NWFund and the cost of the Yucca Mountain Project over a century there is little opportunity to provide useful information for establishing policy. Compared to the Tax Eligibility calculation by DOE, the effect of premature closure can be balanced by the wrong initial assumptions of the life of a nuclear plant. DOE assumed that the fleet of 104 reactors operating in 2012 would receive one extension of license, but only one, 20 years, taking a fleet of about 6,000 years of operator and waste generation.
With around 30 reactors due to retire early, after around 40 years, and the 79 or so reactors receiving a second 20-year to 80-year license extension, a fleet of around 7,500 years of operator and waste generation there. , much larger. A second 20-year license extension would do more.
The next time a DOE, or new governing entity, prepares the life cycle cost estimate of an updated system, it may be best to look at direct revenues and expenses without trying to pre- predict inflation or attempts at economic forecasting because these direct values could influence everything that happens. Unfortunately, NWFund ‘s revenue is heavily loaded over about 60 years beginning in 1983, while the construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain Project, or whatever replaces it, heavily loaded for 60 years after 2043.
If that happens, the NWFund could gather a lot of interest before any activity starts, making its financial efficiency virtually greater. However, predicting the costs of construction, labor and materials, such as large quantities of titanium, beyond the middle of the century is getting back to be too hard to believe, certainly to determine conference rates in the years when spending has to happen.
It is difficult to plan or estimate nuclear generation, and any tax collection, several years into the future. It is uncertain whether any fees would be collected retroactively after the resumption of the NWFund, although that is unlikely to be the case.
Ultimately, although we do not know, these premature closures will have a significant impact on the final state of our nuclear waste disposal program.
Of course, Congress must stop stealing money from the NWFund, or everything could be for babies.
Happy New Year ‘We hope 2021 is better than 2020!