IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/204656.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transporting and Storing High-Level Nuclear Waste in the U.S.—Insights from a Mathematical Model

Author

Listed:
  • Wegel, Sebastian
  • Czempinski, Victoria
  • Oei, Pao-Yu
  • Wealer, Ben

Abstract

The nuclear industry in the United States of America has accumulated about 70,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste over the past decades; at present, this waste is temporarily stored close to the nuclear power plants. The industry and the Department of Energy are now facing two related challenges: (i) will a permanent geological repository, e.g., Yucca Mountain, become available in the future, and if yes, when?; (ii) should the high-level waste be transported to interim storage facilities in the meantime, which may be safer and more cost economic? This paper presents a mathematical transportation model that evaluates the economic challenges and costs associated with different scenarios regarding the opening of a long-term geological repository. The model results suggest that any further delay in opening a long-term storage increases cost and consolidated interim storage facilities should be built now. We show that Yucca Mountain’s capacity is insufficient and additional storage is necessary. A sensitivity analysis for the reprocessing of high-level waste finds this uneconomic in all cases. This paper thus emphasizes the urgency of dealing with the high-level nuclear waste and informs the debate between the nuclear industry and policymakers on the basis of objective data and quantitative analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Wegel, Sebastian & Czempinski, Victoria & Oei, Pao-Yu & Wealer, Ben, 2019. "Transporting and Storing High-Level Nuclear Waste in the U.S.—Insights from a Mathematical Model," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(12), pages 1-23.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:204656
    DOI: 10.3390/app9122437
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/204656/1/applsci-09-02437-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3390/app9122437?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Briggs, Th. & Kunsch, P. L. & Mareschal, B., 1990. "Nuclear waste management: An application of the multicriteria PROMETHEE methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 1-10, January.
    2. Ramana, M.V., 2013. "Shifting strategies and precarious progress: Nuclear waste management in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 196-206.
    3. Kessides, Ioannis N., 2010. "Nuclear power: Understanding the economic risks and uncertainties," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 3849-3864, August.
    4. Borges Silverio, Leticia & Lamas, Wendell de Queiroz, 2011. "An analysis of development and research on spent nuclear fuel reprocessing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 281-289, January.
    5. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp1779 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. D. Warner North, 2013. "Can Sisyphus Succeed? Getting U.S. High‐Level Nuclear Waste into a Geological Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 2-14, January.
    7. Miaou, Shaw-Pin & Chin, Shih-Miao, 1991. "Computing k-shortest path for nuclear spent fuel highway transportation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 64-80, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    2. Mari, Carlo, 2014. "Hedging electricity price volatility using nuclear power," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 615-621.
    3. Shimada, Go, 2024. "Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant impact on regional economies from 1960 to 2010," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    4. Hokkanen, Joonas & Salminen, Pekka, 1997. "Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 19-36, April.
    5. Schmeda-Lopez, Diego & McConnaughy, Thomas B. & McFarland, Eric W., 2018. "Radiation enhanced chemical production: Improving the value proposition of nuclear power," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 491-504.
    6. Linares, Pedro & Conchado, Adela, 2013. "The economics of new nuclear power plants in liberalized electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 119-125.
    7. Abu-Taleb, Maher F. & Mareschal, Bertrand, 1995. "Water resources planning in the Middle East: Application of the PROMETHEE V multicriteria method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 500-511, March.
    8. Ocelík, Petr & Osička, Jan & Zapletalová, Veronika & Černoch, Filip & Dančák, Břetislav, 2017. "Local opposition and acceptance of a deep geological repository of radioactive waste in the Czech Republic: A frame analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 458-466.
    9. Staffan A Qvist & Barry W Brook, 2015. "Potential for Worldwide Displacement of Fossil-Fuel Electricity by Nuclear Energy in Three Decades Based on Extrapolation of Regional Deployment Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-10, May.
    10. Brookes, Naomi J. & Locatelli, Giorgio, 2015. "Power plants as megaprojects: Using empirics to shape policy, planning, and construction management," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 57-66.
    11. Jain, Shashi & Roelofs, Ferry & Oosterlee, Cornelis W., 2014. "Decision-support tool for assessing future nuclear reactor generation portfolios," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 99-112.
    12. M. V. Ramana, 2018. "Technical and social problems of nuclear waste," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(4), July.
    13. Locatelli, Giorgio & Mancini, Mauro & Todeschini, Nicola, 2013. "Generation IV nuclear reactors: Current status and future prospects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1503-1520.
    14. Brook, Barry W., 2012. "Could nuclear fission energy, etc., solve the greenhouse problem? The affirmative case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 4-8.
    15. Laura Rodríguez-Penalonga & B. Yolanda Moratilla Soria, 2017. "A Review of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Strategies and the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Jain, Shashi & Roelofs, Ferry & Oosterlee, Cornelis W., 2013. "Valuing modular nuclear power plants in finite time decision horizon," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 625-636.
    17. Mareschal, Bertrand & Mertens, Daniel, 1993. "Évaluation financière par la méthode multicritère GAIA : application au secteur de l’assurance en Belgique," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 206-228, mars.
    18. Salminen, Pekka & Hokkanen, Joonas & Lahdelma, Risto, 1998. "Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 485-496, February.
    19. Fumin Deng & Yanjie Li & Huirong Lin & Jinrui Miao & Xuedong Liang, 2020. "A BWM-TOPSIS Hazardous Waste Inventory Safety Risk Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-18, August.
    20. Wang, Guangchao & Jia, Ning & Ma, Shoufeng & Qi, Hang, 2014. "A rank-dependent bi-criterion equilibrium model for stochastic transportation environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 511-529.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:204656. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.