1. Economics of Energy Markets

2.  Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 picked
Yucca Mountain as the site of a geologic
repository for nuclear waste.
 The Nuclear Waste Fund gets .1 cents per
KWh of electricity produced in nuclear power
plants in order to pay for Yucca Mountain.
 The DOE was charged with the task of
building and operating Yucca Mountain.

3.  The newest budget estimate quotes a waste
capacity of 122,100 MTU.
 There is 57,830 MTU in the United States, as
of September 2008.
 This leaves 64,720 MTU of storage for waste
produced by nuclear reactors.
 My goal is to project how long it will take for
Yucca Mountain to reach capacity.
 To do this, we need to project how much
waste will be produced per year.

5.  Last reactor began operation in 1996.
 Growing demand for electricity of 1% per year
for foreseeable future.
 Growing concerns about global warming and
greenhouse gas emissions.
 Carbon tax could make nuclear power much more
attractive.
 22 applications for 33 reactors since 2007.
 Indicates renewed interest in nuclear power.
 Probably the most telling sign of where nuclear
industry is headed.

6.  Projects 300 reactors operational by 2050.
 Each has 1 GWe of capacity.
 Says the United States should focus research
and policy on geologic repositories like Yucca
Mountain.
 Does not address growth path of nuclear
reactors over time.
 Simply states how many and when.
 Does not address growth path of waste over
time.
 Apparently they should have.

7.  Nuclear’s share of total electricity generation
would be 47.8% by 2050.
 Based on a growth in total electricity consumption
of 1% per year.
 Growth rate in the number of reactors of
2.5% per year.
 % change growth rate consistent with ~300
reactors in 2050.
 Means an average of 5 reactors are built per year.

8.  Rate of growth per year in number of reactors:
 Extreme decline: less than-1.5%
 Negative growth: rate between -1.5% and -.5%
 No growth: rate between -.5% and .5%
 Positive growth: rate between 0.5% and 1.5%
 Extreme growth: greater than 1.5%
 Assumptions:
 Constant waste per reactor of 20 MTU per year..
 Percent change growth in number of reactors at rate
indicated.

9. 2.5%, 2222

13.  It is extremely likely that the growth path will fall
between -1.5% and 1.5%, at least through 2050.
 The growth path you choose depends on your
expectations.
 How does 120 reactors by 2037 sound? Pretty good?
 Then you better have a second repository operating by
that date.
▪ I don’t mean start building by 2037, I mean start receiving waste and
storing it by 2037.
 104 reactors in 2039 more your speed?
 Fine, be pessimistic and say there are only 88 in 2042.
 You get the picture.
 Should we plan for the worst and have a repository
ready by 2034 just in case?

14.  Yucca Mountain will reach full capacity by
2037 with only slight growth in the nuclear
industry.
 That’s 28 years from now.
 The US chose Yucca in 1982. Now it says
Yucca will be operational by 2020.
 If the past is any indication we should have
picked a second site ten years ago.
 We can avoid a nuclear waste crisis by picking
a second site NOW.

15.  Yucca’s expected lifetime budget is $96 billion
through 2133, in 2007 dollars.
 NWF gets $.001/KWh for nuclear power.
 NWF would earn $100.8 billion during that span.
 2007 dollars, assuming zero growth in nuclear power
generation.
 In such a case Yucca would be full by 2039.
 Cost per MTU of waste at Yucca Mountain is
$782,964.78.
 The NWF only earns half of this per MTU produced.

16.  The better tax rate is .202 cents per KWh.
 I defined efficiency as total electricity generated per
MTU of waste produced in a given year for the whole
nuclear industry.
 The ideal tax is cost divided by efficiency.
 The current tax is wrong by a factor of 2
 This is very significant because the DOE needs to build
at least two repositories and can only afford one.
 A second problem with the current system is that
in order to tax per KWh, the tax must be
generalized to all nuclear power plants.

17.  The DOE taxes electricity generation.
 Electricity generation and waste production are not
perfectly correlated.
 The data shows that newer plants are both more
powerful and more efficient than older plants.
 In general, more efficient plants are being taxed more
than less efficient plants under the current plan.
 The tax policy provides no incentive to improve
efficiency.
 The goal of the DOE’s tax plan is to fund the
disposal of nuclear waste, but the tax plan does
not reward power plants for reducing their
production of nuclear waste.

18.  Ideally the tax would be based on the cost of disposal of
an MTU of waste.
 Currently, the tax is based on the government’s attraction to
arbitrary round numbers.
 It would be much simpler and much more fair to tax
every power plant directly for each MTU of waste they
produce.
 The disposal cost of an MTU of waste is known, and is
$782,964.78.
▪ This rate should be allowed to change over time to reflect changes in
the cost of waste disposal.
 The tax plan would simply stipulate that for every MTU
of waste produced in a nuclear power plant, the plant is
charged an amount exactly equal to the cost of disposal
of an MTU of waste at that time.

19. If you want to tax the production of
nuclear waste, then tax the production of
nuclear waste.
This point should be obvious.
It bears repeating that the DOE is NOT
doing this.
They should be.
On a lighter note, was it the same dead
horse?

20.  The United States needs to build a second geologic
repository by 2040 at the latest to avoid a waste crisis.
 The current tax rate for the NWF will not earn enough to
pay for a second repository.
 The United States should charge each power plant
directly for the production of radioactive waste.
 The amount charged at any given time should be equal to
the present cost of disposal.
 Only by taxing waste correctly can the US provide the right
incentives for power plants to reduce waste production.
 Something has to change. The world must know my
story.

22. Negative or No Growth in Reactors Positive Growth in Reactors
Negative
Slope for
Waste per
Reactor
Curve
Economically unfeasible
Decreasing the amount of waste
produced per reactor is more expensive
per MTU than building a repository.
There is no reason to do this when long
term waste disposal is not an issue.
Technically unfeasible in long run
Means either fuel is being reprocessed
faster than it is being created or
increasing efficiency over time.
Positive
Slope for
Waste per
Reactor
Curve
Sustainable in long run
Unwilling to accept consequences in
long run
Threshold will be reached beyond which
we are more willing to reprocess or build
more efficient plants at higher cost than
we are to build repositories.

23.  Two factors can change total waste per reactor Wr(tot):
 More waste is being produced per reactor over time [Wr(pro)].
▪ In the short run Wr(pro) is decreasing because efficiency (power/reactor) is
improving. Efficiency has technical limitations and is constant in the LR. It could
even be positive in LR if there is always room for improvement.
▪ In LR, power per reactor is increasing. Always room for improvement.
▪ Wr(Pro) = P/E
 Existing waste is being reprocessed [Wr(rep)]
 Wr(tot) is the difference between the waste produced pre reactor
and the waste reprocessed per reactor in a given year.
 Wr(tot) = Wr(pro) – Wr(rep)
 If either factor prevails, there is pressure for the other to increase. The
pressure is discussed in the last slide.
 The Wr(tot) curve is constant in the long run. In the short run it will
fluctuate.
 The implementation of technological developments change the
constant, not the fact that it is constant.

24.  Largest production capacity of
clean energy sources.
 Currently accounts for 19.6% of
total electricity generated in U.S.
 No greenhouse gases.
 Much more pleasant than burning
coal.
 Technology is available now.
▪ Don’t need to wait for improvements
to capitalize.
 Waste is limited and
manageable.
 Electricity can be produced near
where it is needed.

25.  Waste has been uncorrelated with demand
over the last 25 years.
 This means that the growth in demand:
 …does not indicate that more reactors will be
built.
 …does indicate that if we decide to build a new
reactor, we can sell its electricity.
 …is completely neutral in my analysis, and will not
be used as a predictive variable.

26.  Total waste
 57,830 MTU currently being stored in U.S. as of 9/08
 98.4% of this is stored on the site at which it was produced.
 Number of Reactors
 Reactors operational in a given year.
 Power
 Average Electricity output per Reactor
 Measured in TWh of electricity produced per reactor in a given year.
 Intensity
 Average Waste per Reactor.
 Measured in MTU produced per reactor in a given year.
 Efficiency
 Average Waste per unit of Power.
 Measured in MTU produced per TWh of electricity generated in a
given year.

28. Rate of Growth -1.5% -0.5% 0 .5% 1.5%
Year to Reach Yucca Capacity 2050 2042 2039 2037 2034
Reactors Operational in 2050 56 69 104 128 191
Nuclear Share 2050 9.3% 14.1% 17.3% 21.2% 31.8%
Reactors Operational in 2133 16 30 104 193 659
Yucca Mountain Equivalents Full by 2133 1.44 2.06 2.60 3.42 6.64

29.  I(pro) = 1/E * P
 Waste/reactor = waste/electricty* electricity/reactor
 Electricity/reactor will increase for foreseeable future.
 Electricity/waste has a technical capacity that has not been
reached. (high burnup).
 In the long run e/w should level off.
 I(pro) = P/E will increase for foreseeable future.
 I(rep) will begin increase if total amount of waste becomes
unreasonable. (reprocessing)
 In the long run, total intensity is balanced by the increase in
intensity from increasing power and the decreasing intensity from
using existing waste as fuel for reactors
 I(tot) = I(pro)-I(rep)
 I(tot) is constant in the long run and is a stable equilibrium. If
either variable strays too far, the other brings it back to baseline.