RO: If nuclear fission is a necessary source of electrical energy in the next century, why should "decommissioning" costs be factored into the cost/benefit analysis?
AK: It just depends on how much you wish to saddle future generations with I guess. You can read about it here. I think this site may be a bit optimistic, but maybe not.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip13.htm
From that site:
All power plants, coal, gas and nuclear, have a finite life beyond which it is not economically feasible to operate them. Generally speaking, nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 year operating life. At the end of the life of any power plant, it needs to be decommissioned and demolished so that the site is made available for other uses. For nuclear plants, the term decommissioning includes all clean-up of radioactivity and progressive demolition of the plant.
DECOMMISSIONING OPTIONS
The International Atomic Energy Agency has defined three options for decommissioning, the definitions of which have been internationally adopted:
• Immediate Dismantling (or Early Site Release/Decon in the US): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated activities. Usually, the final dismantling or decontamination activities begin within a few months or years, depending on the facility. Following removal from regulatory control, the site is then available for re-use.
• Safe Enclosure (or Safestor(e)): This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years. The facility is placed into a safe storage configuration until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities occur.
• Entombment: This option entails placing the facility into a condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to remain on-site without the requirement of ever removing it totally. This option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern.
There is no right or wrong approach, each having its benefits and disadvantages. National policy determines which approach is adopted. In the case of immediate dismantling (or early site release), responsibility for the decommissioning is not transferred to future generations. The experience and skills of operating staff can also be utilised during the decommissioning program. Alternatively, Safe Enclosure (or safestor(e)) allows significant reduction in residual radioactivity, thus reducing radiation hazard during the eventual dismantling. The expected improvements in mechanical techniques should also lead to a reduction in the hazard and also costs.
RO: More particularily, I'm not sure what you mean by "decommissioning". Would the updating/upgrading of an exisiting plant contribute to this cost?
AK: I would not include updating or upgrading in such costs.
Received on Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:23:51 -0500
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 05 2006 - 20:25:35 EST