The Economics of Reprocessing versus Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel

References

• J.-M. CHARPIN, B. DESSUS, and R. PELLAT, “Economic Forecast Study of the Nuclear Power Option,” Office of the Prime Minister, Paris, France (July 2000).
   Google Scholar
• The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France (1994).
   Google Scholar
• I. HENSING and W. SCHULZ, An Economic Comparison of Different Disposal Methods Used by Nuclear Power Plants: A Cost Simulation of Alternative Strategies from the German Point of View, Oldenbourg-Verlag, Munich, Germany (1995).
   Google Scholar
• J. LAKE, “Outdated Thinking is Holding Us Back,” Washington Post, May 12, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• “FY 2004 Detailed Budget Justifications—Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology,” U.S. Department of Energy (Feb. 2003).
   Google Scholar
• M. BUNN, S. FETTER, J. HOLDREN, and B. VAN DER ZWAAN, “The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” Harvard University Managing the Atom Project, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2003).
   Google Scholar
• S. FETTER, University of Maryland School of Public Policy; available on the Internet at ⟨http://www.puaf.umd.edu/fetter⟩.
   Google Scholar
• “The Economic and Commercial Justification for THORP,” British Nuclear Fuels Limited (1993).
   Google Scholar
• A. MACLACHLAN, “BNFL, Overseas Customers Agree on New Reprocessing Contract Terms,” Nucl. Fuel (Oct. 15, 2001).
   Google Scholar
• Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation, U.S. National Research Council, Committee on Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (1996).
   Google Scholar
• “Nuke Fuel Reprocessing to Cost 15 Trillion Yen,” Japan Economic Newswire (May 15, 2003).
   Google Scholar
• M. HIBBS, “More Downward Pressure Expected by Germans on Reprocessing Price,” Nucl. Fuel (Feb. 9, 1998).
   Google Scholar
• G. VARLEY and D. COLLIER, “Fuel Cycle Cost Data,” Nuclear Assurance Corporation (Oct. 1999).
   Google Scholar
• C. BATAILLE and R. GALLEY, The Back End of the Fuel Cycle: Part I: General Study, Office Parlementaire d’Evaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologiques, Paris, France (June 1998).
   Google Scholar
• “Accelerator-Driven Systems (ADS) and Fast Reactors (FR) in Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles: A Comparative Study,” OECD/NEA 03109, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Generation IV Roadmap: Report of the Fuel Cycle Crosscut Group, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Washington, D.C. (Mar. 2001).
   Google Scholar
• The Cost of High-Level Waste Disposal in Geologic Repositories, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France (1993).
   Google Scholar
• “Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program,” DOE/RW-0533, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (May 2001).
   Google Scholar
• “Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy: An Assessment,” DOE/RW-0534, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (May 2001).
   Google Scholar
• S. MATSUURA, “Analysis of the History of Cost Evaluation of High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal,” Harvard University Managing the Atom Project, Cambridge, Massachusetts (unpublished) (2003).
   Google Scholar
• “Scoping Assessment of Implications of Reprocessing Scenarios for Disposal Options: Paper to RWMAC,” NIREX Doc. 334004, Nirex Limited (May 2000).
   Google Scholar
• NIREX, “Response to Questions Raised Based on Reference 334004,” Letter to MIKE SADNICKI (Nov. 22, 2000).
   Google Scholar
• J. KANG, Princeton University, Personal Communication (May 2003).
   Google Scholar
• B. G. CHOW and G. S. JONES, “Managing Wastes With and Without Plutonium Separation,” Report P-8035, RAND Corporation (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Radioactive Substances Act 1993: Document Containing the Agency’s Proposed Decision on the Justification for the Plutonium Commissioning and Full Operation of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant, United Kingdom Environment Agency, London, United Kingdom (Oct. 1998).
   Google Scholar
• M. HIBBS, “Utilities End Hanau MOX Support; Bonn Now Angling for Russian Pu,” Nucl. Fuel (July 6, 1995).
   Google Scholar
• Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium: Reactor Related Options, National Academy of Sciences, Panel on Reactor-Related Options, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (1995).
   Google Scholar
• “Report to Congress: Disposition of Surplus Defense Plutonium at Savannah River Site,” National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (Feb. 15, 2002).
   Google Scholar
• M. SADNICKI, F. BARKER, and G. MacKERRON, “Re-Examination of the Economic Case for the Sellafield MOX Plant,” Science Policy Research Unit, Sussex University, Brighton, United Kingdom (May 2000).
   Google Scholar
• N. MOTE, “The Commercial Use of Mixed-Oxide Fuel in Light-Water Reactors,” presented at U.S. Department of Energy-RF Ministry of Atomic Energy Experts Workshop: Costing Methodologies for Economic Evaluation of Utilization Options of Weapons Plutonium from Defense Programs in the Course of Nuclear Disarmament, Obninsk, Russia, May 12–14 1999.
   Google Scholar
• A. MacLACHLAN, “EDF Makes Case for Economic Advantage of Reprocessing over Interim Storage,” Nucl. Fuel (Oct. 7, 1996).
   Google Scholar
• M. HIBBS, “Court Says Hesse Must Pay Siemens for Costs of Shutting MOX Plant,” Nucl. Fuel (Apr. 26, 1993).
   Google Scholar
• “Report to Congress on the Projected Life-Cycle Costs of the U.S. and Russian Fissile Materials Disposition Programs,” U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (Mar. 30, 2001).
   Google Scholar
• “CRWMS Modular Design Construction and Operation Options Report,” DOE/OCRWM, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (Dec. 1998).
   Google Scholar
• E. M. SUPKO, “Minimizing Risks Associated with Post-Shutdown Spent Fuel Storage and LLW Disposal,” presented at the Infocast Nuclear Power in the Competitive Era postconference workshop, Developing Risk Strategies for Successful Decommissioning, Washington, D.C., Jan. 30, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• “Toward Implementation of Interim Storage for Recycled Fuel Resources,” Interim Report of the Nuclear Energy Working Group, Advisory Committee for Energy, Agency of Natural Resources and Energy, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Tokyo, Japan (June 11, 1998).
   Google Scholar
• T. L. NEFF, “Decision Time for the HEU Deal,” Arms Control Today, 31, 5 (June 2001).
   Google Scholar
• UX CONSULTING, available on the Internet at ⟨http://www.uxc.com⟩.
   Google Scholar
• M. KNAPIK, “LES Hires Advisers to Prime Renewed Push to Site Tennessee Plant; PACE Slams USEC,” Nucl. Fuel (May 26, 2003).
   Google Scholar
• “Trends in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Economic, Environmental, and Social Aspects,” OECD/NEA 03030, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency (2002).
   Google Scholar
• C. K. ANDERSON, “Developments in the U.S. and European LWR Fabrication Markets: A 1998 Update,” Proc. Uranium Institute: 23rd Annual Symp., London, United Kingdom, September 10–11 1998.
   Google Scholar
• W. HENI, “Evaluation of Direct Disposal from the Point of View of One Utility and Perspectives for Waste Management,” Nucl. Technol., 121, 120 (1998).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• “A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems,” U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, and Generation IV International Forum (Dec. 2002).
   Google Scholar
• J. G. DELENE, J. SHEFFIELD, K. A. WILLIAMS, R. L. REID, and S. HADLEY, “An Assessment of the Economics of Future Electric Power Generation Options and the Implications for Fusion,” ORNL TM-1999-243, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1999).
   Google Scholar
• J. P. CRETTE, “Review of the Western European Breeder Programs,” Energy, 23, 7–8, 581 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• J. G. DELENE, L. C. FULLER, and C. R. HUDSON, “ALMR Deployment Economic Analysis,” ORNL TM-12344, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Y. I. CHANG and C. E. TILL, “Economic Prospects of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Fuel Cycle” (unpublished) (1991).
   Google Scholar
• J. C. LEFEVRE, “European Fast Reactor 98: Outcome of Design Studies,” EFR Associates (1998).
   Google Scholar
• S. SAVENKOV, “Minister Rumiantsev: Minatom Will Not be Privatized,” (Interview), Apr. 4, 2003 (translated by the U.S. Department of Energy).
   Google Scholar
• C. E. BOARDMAN, M. HUI, G. CARROLL, and A. E. DUBBERLEY, “Economic Assessment of S-PRISM Including Development and Generating Costs,” General Electric Nuclear Energy.
   Google Scholar
• H. NODA and T. INAGAKI, “Feasibility Study on Commercialized FR Cycle Systems in Japan—The Results in the First Phase and Future Plans of the Study,” presented at Global 2001: The Back End of the Fuel Cycle—From Research to Solutions, Paris, France, September 9–13 2001.
   Google Scholar
• K. AIZAWA, Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute, “Feasibility Studies on Commercialized FR Cycle System,” presented at Aomori, Japan, July 22, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• J. M. DEUTCH and E. J. MONIZ, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology (July 2003).
   Google Scholar
• “Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2004,” DOE/EIA-0554, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (Feb. 2004).
   Google Scholar
• “Technical Assessment Guide: Volume 3, Revision 8: Fundamentals and Methods—Electricity Supply,” TR-100281-V3R8, Electric Power Research Institute (1999).
   Google Scholar
• “Uranium Industry Annual 2002,” DOE/EIA-0478, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (May 2003).
   Google Scholar
• “Annual Report 2002,” Euratom Supply Agency (2003).
   Google Scholar
• M. A. ADELMAN, “My Education in Mineral (Especially Oil) Economics,” Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 22 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• K. E. PORTER and D. L. EDELSTEIN, “Copper Statistics,” Open-File Report 01-006, U.S. Geological Survey (Aug. 28, 2002).
   Google Scholar
• O. GROENVELD, “The Technology Environment for the 21st Century—The Mining Industry,” presented at Technology—Australia’s Future: New Technology for Traditional Industries, Melbourne, Australia, Nov. 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Uranium 2001: Resources, Production, and Demand, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France (2002).
   Google Scholar
• R. PRICE and J. R. BLAISE, “Nuclear Fuel Resources: Enough to Last?” NEA News, 20.2 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• “International Symposium Concluded that Uranium Supply for Nuclear Power is Secure,” press release 2000/26, International Atomic Energy Agency (Oct. 6, 2000).
   Google Scholar
• T. C. POOL, “Uranium Resources for Long-Term, Large-Scale Nuclear Power Requirements,” Nonrenewable Resour., 3, 4 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• “Cameco Increases McArthur River Uranium Reserves,” press release, Cameco (Jan. 25, 2001).
   Google Scholar
• I. HORE-LACY, Nuclear Electricity, 7th ed., Uranium Information Centre, Ltd., Melbourne, Australia (2003).
   Google Scholar
• K. S. DEFFEYES and I. D. MacGREGOR, “World Uranium Resources,” Sci. Am. (Jan. 1980).
   Google Scholar
• T. KATO, K. OKUGAWA, Y. SUGIHARA, and T. MATSUMURA, “Conceptual Design of Uranium Recovery Plant from Seawater,” J. Therm. Nucl. Power Eng. Soc., 50 (1999) (in Japanese).
   Google Scholar
• Global Energy Perspectives, N. NAKICENOVIC, A. GRÜBLER, and A. McDONALD, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (1998).
   Google Scholar
• “Report to Congress on Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative: The Future Path for Advanced Spent Fuel Treatment and Transmutation Research,” U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology (Jan. 2003).
   Google Scholar