Decommissioning is in its infancy, but our cost experience includes several dozen small, experimental reactors plus the 72 MWe Shippingport reactor. Decommissioning is only beginning at large reactors, but the insights already accumulated allow some use of this experience in future estimates. In this chapter, Gene Heinze Fry compares generic cost estimates plus the data for a total of 21 closed U.S. reactors. Despite the common assumption about the efficiencies that will come with more decommissioning experience, Fry finds a complete lack of scale economies. This could have implications for rates of collection, sufficiency of accumulated funds, and equity issues tied to future generations.
CantorR.A. (1985). “Estimated Decommissioning Costs for Selected U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,” Nuclear Power Decommissioning: Analysis of Regulatory Environments. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TM-244/85, cited in U.S. Department of Energy (1985), Commercial Nuclear Power: Prospects for the United States and the World. DOE/E1A-0438(85).
2.
ChapmanD. (1980). Nuclear Economics: Taxation, Fuel Cost, and Decommissioning. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission (P300-80-038).
3.
ChapmanD. (1986). Personal communication.
4.
ChernickP.L.FarleyW.B.MeyerM.B.ScharffL.C. (1981). Design, Costs and Acceptability of an Electric Utility Self-Insurance Pool for Assuring the Adequacy of Funds for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Expenses. (Analysis &Inference, Inc.) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NUREG/CR-2370].
5.
DajesK. (1986). (Commonwealth Edison), personal communication.
6.
FryG.R.H. (1989). “The Economics of Nuclear Power Plants as They Age: Production (Capacity Factors), Variable Costs, and Retirement,” Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
7.
HewlettJ.CantorR.RizyC. (1986). An Analysis of N uclear Power Plant Construction Costs. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE/EIA-0485).
8.
HindmanS. (1985). Dismantling the Myths about Nuclear Decommissioning. Washington DC: Public Citizen/Environmental Action.
9.
RomanoffC. (1981). Power Plant Cost Escalation: Nuclear arid Coal Capacity Costs, Regulation, and Economics. New York: Van Nostrand Keinhold Co.
10.
ManionW.J.LaGuardiaT.S. (1976). An Engineered Evaluation of Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Alternatives. Washington, D.C.: Atomic Industrial Forum (National Environmental Studies Project: AIF/NESP-009).
11.
MerrowE.W.ChapelS.W.WorthingC., (1979). A Review of Cost Estimation in New Technologies: Implications for Energy Process Plants. Rand Corporation (R-2481-DOE), Santa Monica, CA.
12.
MurphyE.S.HollerG.M. (1982). Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Light Water Reactor following Postulated Accidents. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG/CR-2601).
13.
OakH.D.HolterG.M.KennedyW.E., Jr. and G.J. Konzek (1980). Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG/CR-0672).
14.
SkinnerP., P.E. (1977). “Testimony Regarding Costs of Nuclear Waste Management and Decommissioning,” Albany, NY, before the New York Public Service Commission (Case 26974).
15.
SmithR.I.KonzekG.J.KennedyW.E.Jr. (1978). Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG/CR-0130).
16.
SmithR.I.KonzekG.J.MurphyE.S.ElderH.K. (1985). Updated Costs for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Facilities Electric Power Research Institute (NP-4012, Research Project 2558-5).
17.
SmithR.I.PolentzL.M. (1979). Addendum to Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG/CR-0130), J une 1978.
18.
TalbotNeil (1985). “Direct Testimony Concerning Decommissioning Costs for Wolf Creek,” before the Kansas State Corporation Commission (Docket 120,924-U and 142-098-U).
