#19: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (PART 3)

【Onkalo】
Lastly, we’ll examine the Safety Decommission Cost that follows all nuclear power plants – without exception – at the end of their safely operating life expectancies of 40 years. As of now, 11 Japanese plants have closed for decommission. And to complete Safety Decommission, nuclear reactors must be dismantled as well as radioactive waste permanently stored away.
 
The first step is the Dismantle of nuclear reactors. As of 2016, there are 150 nuclear power plants worldwide that have shut down for decommission – an equivalent of 1/4 of all plants constructed. Of those, only 17 reactors have actually completed the dismantle. And the average dismantle cost per reactor was approximately US$1 billion (roughly 113 billion yen). For instance, one of the most recent Safety Decommission closures in the US is Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, Vermont, which ceased operation in December 2014. It’s dismantle cost is budgeted at US$1.2 billion (135 billion yen). By the way, not one Japanese reactor has completed the dismantle.
 
Given that the 54 Japanese nuclear power plants (43 active and 11 closed for decommission) average 32 years since inception, the waves of decommission closure to soon arrive are a sure fact. And such Dismantle Cost will reach US$54 billion (6.1 trillion yen).  
 
Next, the second step is the Radioactive Waste Storage. With 600 nuclear power plants constructed worldwide and 63 years in operational history, we would surely expect a comprehensive radioactive waste management strategy already in place. However, our expectations can’t be more wrong – especially considering that this strategy must encompass hundreds of thousands of years until radioactive waste weakens to a biologically safe level. The truth is that not even one nuclear power plant in the world has in place such comprehensive radioactive waste management strategy. Perhaps, Finland’s “Onkalo” is the only one that even comes remotely close.
 
Finland has long been one of the very few countries to realistically try to tackle the issue of Radioactive Waste Storage to complete Safety Decommission in a responsible manner. Onkalo is an underground repository for the final disposal of radioactive waste. Screening for its construction site began in 1983. After a long screening process, Olkiluoto in Eurajoki, a southwestern municipality of Finland, was selected as the site in 2001. Excavation of 520meter-deep tunnel began in 2004. In 2016, construction of the underground storage facility commenced, and it targets completion by 2020. From thereon, for the following 100 years, all radioactive waste produced in Finland will be stored in Onkalo. And after 100 years, around 2120, when Onkalo will reach its full capacity, it will be buried and its access tunnel backfilled and sealed for approximately 100 thousand years.
 
The estimated construction cost of the project is €800 million (106 billion yen), however the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund has already saved €1.4 billion (186 billion yen) in case of a cost overrun. Nonetheless, even if it’s sealed, there will eventually come a time when aging of the structure will need to be addressed. Furthermore, given that it takes 240 thousand years for plutonium to weaken to a biologically safe level, Onkalo will require 2.5 times the longevity than its current assumption. With this in mind, if we assume the actual Onkalo Construction Cost to be roughly 2.5 times the Fund’s savings, then it will amount to €3.5 billion (465 billion yen) in present currency value. 
 
Moreover, even if it’s sealed, Onkalo is a repository for dangerously high level of radioactive materials. It’s safety management for an inconceivably long 240 thousand years will require not only the scientific expertise and equipment, but also heavy security. While examining the 2nd Ground for Cost Reversal, we’ve estimated a very rough ballpark figure for Shelter Operating Cost within Disaster Decommission Cost. Here, we’ll use the same method in estimating the Onkalo Operating Cost. Yet, Safety Decommission is presumably much more manageable than Disaster Decommission involving melt-down radioactive waste. Thus, if we assume Onkalo is operable at one-tenth of Shelter Operating Cost, then the annual Onkalo Operating Cost would be very roughly 100 million yen (US$0.9 million). This would mean that the operating cost of Onkalo for 240 thousand years will amount to 24 trillion yen (US$210 billion) in present currency value.
 
As such, Finland’s Radioactive Waste Storage Cost would be comprised of Onkalo Construction Cost of 465 billion yen (US$4.1 billion), Onkalo Operating Cost of 24 trillion yen (US$210 billion), for a total of roughly 24.5 trillion yen (US$214.1 billion). Here, it’s important to remember that this cost covers 100 years of radioactive waste produced from the existing 4 nuclear power plants in Finland. If Finland continues on with its nuclear energy policy for longer than 100 years or expands its nuclear energy capacity beyond the existing 4 plants, then it will need to build the 2nd and 3rd Onkalos, and the cost will evidently multiply.
 
Compared to Finland’s 4 nuclear power plants, Japan has 54 existing plants. As such, Japan’s Radioactive Waste Storage Cost would conceivably be 13.5 times that of Finland’s, for a total of 330 trillion yen (US$2.9 trillion). And, like Finland, if Japan continues on with its nuclear energy policy for longer than 100 years or expands its nuclear energy capacity beyond the existing 54 plants, then the cost will evidently multiply.

And now, let’s tally up the Safety Decommission Cost that we’ve examined in the two steps above. The Dismantle Cost of 6.1 trillion yen (US$54 billion), the Radioactive Waste Storage Cost of 330 trillion yen (US$2.9 trillion), for a total of 336.1 trillion yen (roughly US$3 trillion). If we were to include this cost, no one in their right mind would feel the need to compare the cost of thermal power and nuclear power any longer. Here, let’s call this the 3rd Ground for Cost Reversal.
 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, there still remains a concern if Onkalo – our best technology available today – will perform as promised.
 
For instance, many scientists believe that Earth has a history of circulating from 40 to 100 thousand years of glacial period to another, within the millions of years of ice age. And in between these glacial periods, scientific evidences point to frequent massive earthquakes as well as geologic uplifts in the magnitude of several hundred meters. Given Onkalo is 520meters deep, could it withstand these geological stress events without leaking dangerously high level of radioactive materials?
 
Additionally, could man-made structures of today withstand 40 to 100 thousand years of unforgiving glacial environment without leaking dangerously high level of radioactive materials? Naturally, these concerns are very real and legitimate as we face the unprecedented challenge that mankind has never before encountered.
 
Furthermore, Japan is an island nation of extremely active seismic history, with earthquakes of devastating intensity occurring once every hundred years or so. This means that we would average approximately 2,400 earthquakes of intense magnitude in the course of a 240 thousand-year period. And a focal depth at the epicenter is typically assessed at several to tens of kilometers, far deeper in geological layer than Onkalo, leaving it vulnerable to the fierce underground tremors. Again, this poses a legitimate concern for Onkalo’s structural integrity to withstand such fierce forces, for thousands of times, for hundreds of thousands of years without leaking dangerously high level of radioactive materials.  
 
These very real and legitimate concerns cast a serious doubt that the radioactive waste management technology of today is far from being comprehensive or complete.

Read Next: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (4)【Our Responsibility】
Read Previous: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (2)【True Cost】
 
Complete Series: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (1)～(4)
[1]   [2]   [3]   [4]  
 
Read Theme: Environment