Seventy percent of all retired reactors around the world were undergoing decommissioning as of July, according to the latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report.
That figure covers 115 of 173 permanently shuttered reactor units, the report issued Tuesday says.
Nineteen reactors have been fully decommissioned, which the report defines as defueled, deconstructed, and dismantled. Thirteen of those are in the United States, five in Germany, and one in Japan. Of those, 10 have been remediated to “greenfield” status.
“If a 40-year average lifetime is assumed, a further 216 reactors will shut down by 2030 (reactors connected to the grid between 1978 and 1990); and an additional 111 will be shut down by 2057,” according to the report, prepared by nuclear energy consultant Mycle Schneider.
Thirty-four reactors have ceased operations in the United States — more than any other nation. Along with the 13 decommissioned units, another nine are undergoing some form of decommissioning operations. Schneider projected no fewer than 100 reactors will be in decommissioning mode by 2050.
The growing number of retired nuclear plants is connected to sites reaching the anticipated end of their operational life, along with market challenges in the atomic energy sphere, the report says. A number of U.S. utilities have emphasized the market in explaining their decisions in recent years to prematurely close facilities.
“Going forward, decommissioning in the U.S. faces a challenge of efficient dismantling, and of financing the process in a context of low electricity prices placing a further strain on the competitiveness of nuclear power plants, and low provisions on behalf of the companies,” the report says.
On average, the U.S. sites were decommissioned in 14 years. But in all three countries, decommissioning is not completed as early as anticipated, and largely took more time than building and operating the power plant.
The global decommissioning market is expected to grow to $1,000 billion by 2050, creating a need for increased understanding of decommissioning policy, rules, and markets, Schneider wrote.
MIT Study Largely Avoids Spent Fuel Disposition
Separately, a new Massachusetts Institute of Technology study on the global future of nuclear energy urges leaders to create a “politically durable” policy for management of the nation’s nuclear waste.
Such a policy would involve widespread political backing that could survive changes in the White House and on Capitol Hill, according to the MIT Energy Initiative’s “The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World.” It would be one tool to promote financial support for designing new reactors for the nuclear power sector, the report says.
The MIT group otherwise largely avoided in-depth consideration of what to do with spent fuel from nuclear power plants. Existing reports, including the final findings from the Obama administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, have pointed the way toward disposal solutions, if leaders have the political will to enact them, it said.
“Briefly, there exist robust technical solutions for spent fuel management, such as interim storage in dry casks and permanent disposal in geological repositories with excavated tunnels or deep boreholes—the greater difficulty, historically, has been siting such facilities. But the evidence suggests that these solutions can be implemented through a well-managed, consensus-based decision-making process, as has been demonstrated in Finland and Sweden. Domestically, the U.S. government should follow these examples and swiftly move on the recommendations for spent fuel management that have been put before it.”
The Blue Ribbon Commission, in its January 2012 report, made a number of recommendations, including establishing a consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste disposal, creating a new entity to manage that waste program, and advancing one or more geologic repositories for disposal.
The Obama administration formed the Blue Ribbon Commission after suspending licensing of the long-planned Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. It sought to move forward with a consent-based approach, under which local, state, and tribal jurisdictions with accede to having nuclear waste deposited nearby. However, time ran out before the program could progress from planning to reality.
The Trump administration has returned to Yucca Mountain as the best means for disposal. That has reignited the battle with Nevada, where politicians almost unanimously oppose having their state become a storehouse for nuclear waste. Congress is divided on the matter, with the House supporting funding to revive licensing and the Senate opposed. So far, the Senate has had its way.
The Trump administration “has stated its intention to get on with licensing efforts again, but it is sure to face opposition and its intention has not been accompanied by any political plan for winning over opponents of a repository at Yucca Mountain,” according to the MIT report.
