Document
Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Transcription
United States of America Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 100th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 1)4 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 1988 No. 48 Senate EVIDENCE FOR THE ADVANTAGES OP REPROCESSING NUCLEAR WASTE Mr. HECHT. Mr. President, as I have repeatedly stated here on the floor, in committee, and in other arenas, I am completely opposed to deep geological disposal of unrepro-cessed high level nuclear waste, in Nevada or anywhere else. Deep geologic disposal will be terribly expensive, and has never been proven safe anywhere in the world. The way to handle high level nuclear waste is to reprocess it, recycle it, put it right back into conventional nuclear reactors and burn it for energy. When the budget reconciliation bill containing the nuclear waste amendments first passed the Senate last November I opposed it. Nevertheless, the bill contained 17 amendments which I authored. Two of these amendments required the Energy Department to analyze the advantages and any disadvantages of reprocessing nuclear waste, both as a waste management practice and an energy conservation measure. The first amendment required the Energy Department to immediately perform a series of analyses on the economics of reprocessing spent fuel that had aged for different periods of time. In many extensive discussions with prominent nuclear scientists all around the world I had learned that the cost of reprocessing spent fuel that has first aged for 20 or more years is dramatically less expensive than the cost of reprocessing relatively fresh spent fuel, material that has only been out of a reactor for 3 to & years. The second amendment required the Energy Department to take a second look at the cost of reprocessing as a waste management tool, against the cost of deep geological disposal of un-reprocessed spent fuel, at the time the Energy Department formally recommends to the President a site for a construction authorization for a repository. Thus my amendment gave America one last chance to avoid pouring billions of dollars down a repository rathole. The conferees of the House of Representatives on the budget reconciliation bill chose politics over logic, parochial expediency over sensible national energy policy, and dropped both my reprocessing amendments. However, the facts are the facts. Knowledge usually does triumph over ignorance and prejudice, and science has a way of opening the eyes of even those who refuse to see the facts before them. The concept of reprocessing and recycling high level nuclear waste may here and now be politically inconvenient for some members of the House of Representatives, but it is and must inevitably be the way of the future. Whether or not the ostriches eventually take their heads out of the sand, the world slowly and inexorably moves down the path of progress. Last November, during the debate on the nuclear waste provisions, I inserted a table in the record that clearly demonstrated the world's commitment to nuclear energy. That table showed the present and future commitments of 38 nations to nuclear energy, with 395 nuclear power plants in operation. I now have an updated table which shows 39 nations with 418 nuclear power plants in operation. The key fact to be gained from this table is that many other industrialized nations have strong and growing commitments to nuclear energy, and a corresponding need to deal intelligently with the high level nuclear waste produced by their power plants. I ask unanimous consent that this updated table, entitled Nuclear Energy in the World, be inserted at this point in the Record. Mr. President, as I have said many times before, the United States is virtually alone in the world in our mindless rush to put unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository after only 5 years of cooling. Virtually every other major industrialized nation with a serious commitment to nuclear power plans to reprocess and recycle high level nuclear waste. Most also plan to store nuclear waste above ground in facilities that closely resemble modular dry cask storage or monitored retrievable storage for as long as a century. In some cases, the reprocessing would take place at the end of the storage period. In others, reprocessing is expected to take place fairly promptly, and the residual high level waste would be stored on the surface. Either way, the United States is all alone in the world in its doubly ill-advised determination not to reprocess spent fuel, and to put very fresh and very radioactive spent fuel in a deep geologic repository. Mr. President, I ask that a table which appeared in the March issue of the publication Nuclear News, and which indicates how 19 nations are planning to deal with high level nuclear waste, be placed in the Record. In March of this year, the Congressional Research Service reported on a study performed in Germany that indicates that the cost of reprocessing is dramatically reduced by 80 percent by letting spent nuclear fuel cool for 40 years before reprocessing. This study assumes the obvious fact that 40 year old fuel will be less radioactive and therefore easier to handle, that reprocessing costs will decrease as the technology matures and improves, and that a very modest 3 percent discount rate represents the time value of money. Last fall I introduced a number- of scholarly articles into the Congressional Record that show that the costs of reprocessing can and are being reduced through new research. The 3 percent discount rate applies a standard tool of modern financial analysis, and merely reflects the fact that we are better off paying for something many years from now, than paying the same amount of money here and now. According to the Congressional Research Service, the German study concludes that for spent fuel coming out of the reactors in 1990, reprocessing and recycling the waste after 40 years of storage would be 13 percent cheaper than putting the spent fuel in a deep geologic repository. For spent fuel eoming out of the reactor in the year 2028, reprocessing and recycling would be 28 percent cheaper than deep geologic disposal of unreprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Mr. President, I ask that this study by German technical experts be printed in the Record. The results of this study are not particularly surprising, since the cost of building the one reprocessing plant we would probably need in this country has been recently estimated by the Energy Department to be between $1.5 and $2 billion, with a total price tag over 50 years of operation of no more than $7 billion. This can be compared with the Energy Department's June 1987 cost estimate of between $5 and $6 billion just to build a repository, and a total price tag for the repository program of more than $20 billion over 50 years of operation. Even if we need two reprocessing facilities and the costs of this approach are therefore twice as high, recycling nuclear waste still makes a lot more economic sense than deep geologic disposal in a repository. The one nation on this planet that has experienced the most pain from the advent of the nuclear is certainly Japan. However, as can readily be seen from the tables that are not in the Record, Japan has not hesitated to dedicate itself wholeheartedly to energy generation from the atom. Eventually, nuclear power will provide the overwhelming bulk of Japan's energy. And Japan will reprocess its high level nuclear waste in order to help solve the nuclear waste problem, and get the most out of the energy potential of the nuclear fuel. If recent history has taught us anything about Japan, then it is certainly that the Japanese are very thoughtful and effective businessmen. It therefore can be no accident that the Japanese have dedicated so much of their energy sector to nuclear power. They recognize a sound economic and energy investment when they see one, and they are capitalizing on it. Mr. President, I ask that an article from the November 21,1987, edition of the Japan Times Weekly discussing Japan's commitment to reprocessing nuclear waste, and a similar article from the March issue of Nuclear News, both be published in the Record. About this time last year, I traveled to Europe with a number of other Senators, to inspect nuclear energy and nuclear waste facilities in France and Sweden. France is fully committed to nuclear energy and to reprocessing nuclear fuel for recycling in conventional light water reactors. In fact, routine commercial operation using mixed oxide fuel, the plutonium-nuclear product of French reprocessing technology, just began in France last November. The French are now doing what we discussed in this country in the mid-1970's, but foolishly abandoned for ill-conceived political reasons. Let me reiterate that the French are using reprocessing to create nuclear fuel for regular, conventional nuclear reactors; not for breeder reactors. There does not need to be any linkage between reprocessing and breeder reactors. Mr. President, I ask that an article from the January issue of Nuclear News, which describes this significant Germany..,,..,.,. French step forward, be printed in the Record. The material follows: Store AS for followed 5-10 years, to be reprocessing and vitrified HLW in geologic repository. Spent fuel (S stored in AR wet pools awl dry casks. disposal s NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE WORLD Country Number of reactors Generating capacity (megawatts) Nuclear a? percent of total electricity Additional reactors planned Argentina............................ Austria............................... Belgium.............................. Brazil................................. Bulgaria.............................. Canada............................... People's Republic of China Cuba................................... Czechoslovakia.................... Egypt................................... Finland................................ France................................ West Germany..................... East Germany...................... Hungary.............................. India.................................... Iraq..................................... Israel................................... Italy..................................... Japan .................................. South Korea........................ Libya................................... Mexico................................ Netherlands........................ Norway............................?., Pakistan.............................. Philippines........................... Poland................................. 2 935 11 1 692 4 7 ... 8 5,465 64 1 626 1 5 1,620 32 18 10,343 13 8 2,380 25 8 2 4 2,310 38 ..?. 53 44.945 71 13 21 16,544 37 7 5 1,702 12 6 4 1,188 24 2 6 1,265 ..... 8 3 36 7 1,285 23,740 4,289 4 32 22 1 1 5 15 4 2 2 507 20 125 South Africa..................... 2 1 844 . Spain................................ 8 5,677 24 Sweden............................ 12 9,605 28.5 , Switzerland...................... 5 2,930 40 6 4,884 52 Turkey.............................. United Kingdom................ 38 11340 20 United States................... 106 89,385 16 USSR............................. 54 27,999 11 Yugoslavia........................ 1 615 6 . 2 20 3 5 24 23 Total.. 418 INTERNATIONAL SPENT-FUEL STORAGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES A SUMMARY BY COUNTRY County Spent-fuel strategy Argentina.............At-reactor reactor (AR) and away-from-AFR) storage for 10 years minimum, and then reprocessing, with disposal of vitrified high-level waste (HLW) in deep geologic repository. Belgium..?...........Reprocess spend fuel and dispose of vitrified HLW after 50-75 years of storage. Spent fuel is stored in AR pools, with expansion added as needed. Brazil------------------AR storage, followed by reprocessing, with vitrified wastes placed in geologic repository. Canada................ Store approximately 50 years, then prepare for geologic disposal, with a possibility of reprocessing based on economic indications. Current policy is retrievable storage in AR wet pools and dry concrete canisters. Finland................. Store for a mimimum of 5 years, and then return to foreign suppliers (USSR) or transport to another foreign country for disposal. Domestic geologic disposal has not been ruled out. AR site expansion using wet pools has fulfilled storage needs. France,.,.,,,......,?., Store AR for not more than one year and then transport for reprocessing. Vitrified HLW is stored for 20 years minimum and then placed in deep geologic disposal. None. None. None. hiifa, .,..,? Japan.,, Interim storage onsite, followed by reprocessing. Vitrified HLW to be burwd in geologic repository. Current near-term needs met by AR poo! storage.. Italy,,.,,................Reprocess via a foreign nation, With HI W to be returned to; internal geologic disposal after 50 years of storage. High density and compact racks have solved nearterm storage needs, and demonstration project on dry storage is under way. ?? Reprocess via a foreign nation until domestic reprocessing capability is in place. AR pool storage planned, with 30-50 years of interim storage o? HLW planned before geologic disposal South Korea. ?,?. AR storage, followed by central dry storage for 50 years at a separate facility. Near-term storage needs met through high-density racks. Netherlands ??., Reprocess via a foreign nation and then return vitrified waste for geologic disposal after 50-100 years of storage Current needs are met with AR storage, with plans to build AFR storage facility. Spain................... AR storage for 10 years, followed by 10-20 years of dry cask storage. Direct disposal in geologic repository is planned. Current and near-term needs met with AR pools.. .....Storage in AFR facility for 40 years and then disposal is geologic repository. Current spent fuel stored onsite for six months before transport to central facility (CLAB) Sweden. 191 Away-from-reactor storage facilities Gorteben has operating permit for dry cask storage, but permit under litigation. Julich has 3 fuel elements stored in a metal cask inside a concrete vault None. 12 PWR assemblies if modular concrete vault site at Trmo Vercellese. Drywell vault storage tested at Tokai; development of dry storage casks tested by CPIEPf None. 5000-MTU capacity dry vault in planning stages for all types of radioactive waste, including spent fuel. None, CLAB facility has capacity of 3000 MTU, with expansion planned to 9000. Assemblies stored in open canisters in stainless steel-lined reinforced concrete pools approximately 25-30 m below surface. CLAB located near Oskarshamn power plant Castor 1C dry cask tested 3na licensed. None Switzerland ,?..., Ship to foreign country for reprocessing, with HLW to be returned for interna! disposal. Current needs met with AR high-density racks- Taiwan ................ Store AR, to be followed by AR or central dry cask storage facility for 50 years, Near-term and current storage capacity met through high-density racks.. INTERNATIONAL SPENT-FUEL STORAGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES A SUMMARY BY COUNTRY?Continued County Spent-fuel strategy Away-from-reactor storage facilities Dry concrete canisters in use at Whiteshell, Gentilty, and Douglas Point. KPA-ST0RE at TVO station completed m 1987. 150-200 -MTU vault facility under construction at Cadarache. Wet pool storage at La Hague. United Kingdom.... Interim storage AR followed by reprocessing. Vitrified HLW to be placed m deep geologic repository after 50 years of storage. AR pools have met storage needs. Dry vault storage currently used at Wyffa for Magnox fuel. United States.......Store for a minimum of 5 years, then disposal in geologic repository. Current policy is AR wet pools or AFR dry casks or dry vaults. USSR________________Interim storage AR followed by reprocessing. Vitrified HLW stored for a minimum period, then buried via deep geologic disposal. Also reprocessing spent fuel from Soviet plants sold to other rations. Source: Information obtained from U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and other sources. Three modular dry vaults at Wyffa plant using natural convection for cooling; capacity is 83 MTU. Castor v/21 casks used at Surry's ISFSI. NUHOMS dry vault at Robinson. The Alternatives for Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (By H. Schmale, Rheinisch-Wcstfalisches Elektrizit&tswerk; K.P. Messer, Rheinisch-Westfaiisches Elektrizitatswerk; and E. Merz, Kernforschungsanlage JUlich) A comparative analysis under the long-term aspects of economy, ecology and risks with the potential for improvements through multinational solutions. Precisely, the closing of the nuclear fuel cycle refers to the arrangements for the disposal of spent fuel elements. Spent fuel elements have the special feature that, on the one hand, they are waste that must be disposed of, while on the other hand they also represent a useful source of plutonium and reusable irradiated uranium. The feature of radioactivity brings with it special time influences of the handling of the fuel elements, processing steps and reuse of the recoverable fissile materials, for which the determination of an appropriate solution becomes a rather complex task. 1. general problems and present status of spent fuel disposal The basic procedures for the reprocessing of spent fuel, manufacture of plutonium as well as the conditioning and disposal of the wastes were developed four decades ago by the nuclear arms states in the scope of military plutonium production programs, and were put to large industrial-scale application. However, a disposal solution for the purely peaceful use of nuclear energy has hardly gone beyond the testing or demonstration stage. In West Germany, this fact has been interpreted by the public of the nuclear power plant operators. Thus, the opinion became widespread that an immediate solution of the disposal question was an irrevocable prerequisite for the further use of nuclear energy. Referring to the general principle of responsibility and obligation for disposal of waste by the producer, the creation of the necessary disposal facilities was then made an official obligation of the electrical utilities. This shall be fulfilled through officially-issued step-by-step goals, the achievement of which will be treated as a legal condition for the building permits and operating licenses of nuclear power plants. An analysis of the historical development of nuclear energy in the world shows in general the following causes why solutions for disposal lag behind in the peaceful application of nuclear energy: Political fears in the nuclear arms states that the course of disposal gone exclusively in the past via reprocessing and plutonium would increase the risks of proliferation, sabotage and military misuse. The unsuccessful efforts in the USA to transfer the peaceful use of nuclear energy with all steps of the fuel cycle to private ownership. Ruinous competition, bad experiences with technical setbacks, extreme difficulties in licensing, and political risks led to a reorientation in the competent chemical industry away from initially high ambitions with euphoric initiatives towards absolute disinterest or strict refusal. The successful development of techniques for interim storage, making it possible to keep spent fuel safely and economically for several decades. The growing awareness that for the present a deferral of the controversial fuel reprocessing for 30-40 years would result in considerable advantages. With the exception of certain regional conditions, there is no real reason to push for a rash solution, without appropriately optimizing the approach to disposal. Both as a real possibility to cover the long-term energy demand of mankind, but also because of the particular dangers going beyond national borders, the use of nuclear energy has in any case become a global problem, which requires worldwide consent and cooperation. The most effective way of minimizing the environmental effects and the risks which fuel reprocessing and plutonium manufacture in particular bring with them would consist in restricting those activities to a few large-scale supranational centers, which should be built at sites specially predestined for this purpose. Only in this way can acceptable disposal services be made available to all eventual nuclear power plant operators in the various regions of the world, which otherwise would be hindered because of the more or less large differences in the prevailing boundary conditions. 2. sequence of decisions for spent fuel disposal and basic possibilities for solution Diagram 1 shows the sequence of decisions for spent fuel disposal with the resulting basic possibilities for solution. Thereby, the following 3 questions are to be answered in particular: Should the spent fuel elements be disposed of through final storage or should they be used for the recovery of fissile material through reprocessing? In case of reprocessing, what shall be done with the recoverable plutonium and irradiated uranium? When must the various disposal facilities be ready for operation and what time schedule is to be set for the individual steps towards disposal? Besides the one solution for disposal through final storage, there exists a range of possibilities if one goes the way of reprocessing. Therefore, the latter can only be clarified through representative examples, which show the essential differences. The appropriate starting point for determining the typical cases is the existing boundary conditions with their practical prerequisites. For the irradiated uranium generated from the reprocessing of spent LWR fuel elements, the economically most favorable procedure is to use it as feed material for the enrichment process. For the recoverable plutonium, one should consider either recycling for reuse in a reactor of the original type or reserving it as a start-up contribution for the required plutonium inventory in new breeder reactor capacity. The framework of the time schedule is given by the overall duration of the back end of the fuel cycle. This is fixed by the feasibility of final storage, which must be reached throughly radioactive decay by application of a waiting period of 30 to 50 years. In this respect, there are no differences between the various alternatives for disposal. The necessary waiting period can be over-bridged by means of interim storage, which has to be performed either in the form of spent fuel elements or as concentrated high level waste. The transition point between these two forms is the reprocessing step, whose performance is fixed by the cooling time applied between unloading from the reactor and reprocessing. The effective range of the cooling time can be investigated by studying the relations for the two boundary conditions: As a cooling time minimum, two years appear realistic. The maximum cooling time is set at 45 years, consisting of a 5-year period at the nuclear power plant and a max. interim storage time in dual-purpose casks, as permitted by licensing regulations, of 40 years. In order to avoid the uneconomical and problematic interim storage of plutonium and irradiated uranium, these materials should be reused as soon as possible. As long as no real demand for the fast breeder reactor exists, it becomes practically mandatory to consume the plutonium in LWR's if direct reprocessing is used. In the case of deferred reprocessing, interim storage is restricted to the form of spent fuel elements. With respect to the approach to disposal for the next decades, the solution thus becomes identical to that in the case of final storage of fuel elements. The necessary decision for the next decades is therefore restricted to the two alternatives: "Direct Reprocessing or Interim Storage of Spent FE" If interim storage is applied, all choices for disposal remain open. The decision concerning the actual disposal need only be reached after approx. 30 years between the two possibilities: "Reprocessing or Final Storage of Spent Fuel Elements" If reprocessing is chosen, an additional decision concerning the further utilization of the plutonium becomes necessary between the variants: "Pu-Consumption in LWR's or Reservation for FBR's" Prom the sequence of decisions, it follows that there are four principal possibilities for disposal to be investigated as representative examples: 1. Direct reprocessing (after 2 years' cooling time) with recycling of the plutonium and irradiated uranium. Forty years' interim storage with subsequent: 2. Reprocessing with consumption of the plutonium and irradiated uranium in the PWR. 3. Reprocessing with reservation of the plutonium for the start-up of breeder reactor capacity. 4. Pinal storage of the spent fuel elements. 3. dependence of the applicable solution for disposal on the reactor type The formation of the highly radioactive fission products associated with the production of a certain thermal energy is independent of the reactor type. In the generation of electricity, small deviations are only caused by differences in thermodynamic efficiency. Fast breeder reactors can only fulfill their function if the spent core and blanket elements are subjected to direct reprocessing, and the recoverable plutonium is used for the immediate production of new core elements. The short cooling times required for a minimum plutonium inventory in the fuel cycle, burnups approx. three times higher than in LWR fuel elements, plutonium concentrations of nearly 20%, and eventual difficulties in dissolving the mixed oxide, all impose extremely high requirements on the reprocessing technique for spent core elements, whose feasibility is still to be achieved through special development programs. The alternatives for disposal shown before are only valid in the category of so-called "thermal reactors". Here one must make a distinction between those which operate with natural uranium fuel elements and those whose fuel elements consist of enriched uranium. In the enrichment process performed for the latter, approx. % of the necessary initial natural uranium- is transformed into so-called "tails waste". The irradiated uranium in the spent fuel of natural uranium reactors however contains so little U-235 that it is also to be treated as waste. In spite of this, due to its more than doubled plutonium content, the profitability of reprocessing is not lost. Since the total natural uranium requirement for both reactor systems is approximately the same, in the end there are no large differences with respect to disposal. Quantitative comparisons of the disposal alternatives require a uniform reference basis and a defined reactor type. At the present, approx. 80% of the world nuclear power plant capacity are light water reactors. The predominance of the pressurized water reactor makes this type the most interesting case. The following analyses are therefore based on a nuclear power plant program exclusively consisting of PWR's. 4. effect of the disposal solution on the demand for natural uranium and the quantities of waste In Diagram 2, the balance of natural uranium for the four basic disposal alternatives is given. As unit of reference, one GW-year of net electricity generation in PWR-power plants is used. Accordingly, the balance gives the annual mass flow for a power station of 1250 MWe operating 7000 hours per year. Thereby, the following break-down was used: Natural uranium needed for the manufacture of new fuel elements for the annual reloads as the input quantity in the fuel cycle. Quantities leaving the fuel cycle as uranium wastes. Whereabouts of the remaining uranium as wastes in other chemical forms. The demand for natural uranium is of importance both under the aspect of long-term fuel supply and with respect to the extent of damage to the environment through mining. Alternative 4 corresponds to the normal case of the "One-way or throw-away cycle" and therefore has the largest natural uranium requirement. In cases 1-3, a savings of natural uranium is made possible through reprocessing, for which the magnitude depends on the cooling time applied for reprocessing and on the reuse of the recovered fissile materials: The combination of direct reprocessing with immediate recycling of the irradiated uranium and plutonium in Alternative 1 results in equilibrium conditions rather soon. The necessary annual fuel replacement can then be manufactured in constant proportions of natural uranium, irradiated reproc- essing uranium and mixed oxide. In this way, the demand for natural uranium diminishes in approx. ? years from initially 203 to 142 t U/GWa. With both deferred reprocessing variants, the savings in natural uranium are only realized with a delay corresponding to the duration of interim storage. For securing the supply, this should hardly matter because there exists presently a surplus on the uranium market, which will probably continue for some time. While the achievable savings of natural uranium from direct reprocessing amounts to 61 t U/GW a s- 30%, it increases in the case of a 40-year reprocessing deferment up to 66 t U/GWa = 33%. On the one hand, for variant 3 with Pu reservation for start-up of breeder reactors, the attainable savings of natural uranium for the PWR is lower by about 29 t U/GWa ~ 14%. However, on the other hand with the reserved plutonium, the installation of breeder capacity corresponding to 25 MW^ FBR per GW-year of PWR operation is made possible. To such extent, the further generation of electricity in PWR's could be renounced. The FBR-power generated afterwards in its place could then be maintained under the exclusive use of the tails waste from previous PWR operations for approx. 5000 years. Thus, a permanent savings of approx. 4.1 t/a would arise in the following annual requirement of natural uranium for the overall nuclear power generation. Also associated with the attainable savings in natural uranium through the disposal solution of reprocessing, there are corresponding reductions in the uranium waste to be disposed of, which should be welcomed because of the general principle of minimizing waste volume. A comparison of the values in the diagram shows the following relations: For all the disposal solutions, around 98% of the input quantity of natural uranium leave the fuel cycle in the form of uranium wastes and are to be put to disposal through final storage. The tails uranium produced in the enrichment of natural uranium amounts to around 85% of the original natural uranium demand and comes out in advance. Thus this material represents the real quantitative problem, which will furthermore become acute in relatively short time. In spite of this, little attention has been given to this problem until now. With the reprocessing alternatives, a reduction in the total quantity of waste uranium results, which compared to final storage amounts to 30-33% in the case of reutiliza-tion of the irradiated U and Pu and diminishes to 18% in the case of Pu-reservation. However, the breeder makes it possible later to generate power without uranium wastes, thus paying for itself with a decline of approx. 3.4 t/a in the waste production. Where the residual 2% of natural uranium remains is informative, especially with respect to the risks. The actual radioactivity problem stems from the fission products and the Plutonium, which are therefore listed separately in the diagram: The production of 1100 kg of fission products and approx. 300 kg of plutonium per GWa takes place independent of the approach to disposal. In the case of Alternative 4. both of these materials have to be fi- nally stored as constituents of the spent fuel elements. For the disposal solution through reprocessing, the fission products are to be disposed of in concentrated form as high active wastes, while the plutonium becomes a through-put and inventory item in the outer fuel cycle. 5. economic comparison of the alternatives for disposal of spent fuel with their time dependences and possibilities for improvement Diagram 3 shows the effect of spent fuel disposal costs on electricity generation in PWR-power plants for the example cases of the fuel discharge batches in the refueling years 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2030. Here, the specific disposal costs in "pfennig" allotted to one kilowatt hour on the real value basis of 1990 are plotted for the four basic alternatives in a bar graph.,The total bar height shows the specific disposal costs expecte