Publication Laka-library:
Costs of reprocessing versus directly disposing of spent nuclear fuel

AuthorPeter R.Orszag, US Senat
-
DateNovember 2007
Classification 6.01.0.10/76 (COSTS)

From the publication:

     CBO
  TESTIMONY
                   Statement of
                  Peter R. Orszag
                     Director


    Costs of Reprocessing
 Versus Directly Disposing of
     Spent Nuclear Fuel

                before the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
           United States Senate


               November 14, 2007


      This document is embargoed until it is delivered at
      10:00 a.m. (EST) on Wednesday, November 14,
      2007. The contents may not be published, transmit-
      ted, or otherwise communicated by any print,
      broadcast, or electronic media before that time.




       CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
         SECOND AND D STREETS, S.W.
           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici, and Members of the Committee, thank you for
the invitation to discuss the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) analysis of the
costs of two alternatives for the use and disposal of nuclear fuel. For the past 50
years, the nuclear waste produced at reactors across the United States has largely
been stored at the reactor sites. That practice, however, has been deemed untenable
for the long run.

CBO’s analysis compares the cost of two fuel-cycle alternatives for the current
generation of thermal reactors. One alternative is direct disposal (as stipulated by
current law), which involves using nuclear fuel once, cooling it at an interim stor-
age site, and then disposing of it in a long-term repository. The second alternative
is reprocessing, in which spent nuclear fuel is cooled and then reprocessed for one
additional use in a reactor, and the wastes from reprocessing are stored in a long-
term repository.
My testimony makes the following key points:

B   The cost of directly disposing of spent nuclear fuel is less than the cost of repro-
    cessing it. That basic result holds across a wide range of plausible assumptions,
    but the magnitude of the cost difference between the alternatives varies signifi-
    cantly among diff

This publication is digitally available in the Laka library, but it's not on-line.
E-mail us (info@laka.org) if you would like the pdf sent to you (with the subject, number and title). Of course you can also come by.