In the 1990s, the most cost-effective strategy for the decommissioning of the British Manox reactor unit was considered maintenance and repair. Three years have passed, has this changed? Author: John Lindbergh

The October 1991 issue of Nuclear Engineering International reported an analysis conducted by Nuclear Power Corporation (the predecessor of British Energy) to explore potential ways to reduce the cost of decommissioning its Magnox and advanced gas-cooled reactor units. The previous strategy was divided into three phases (90 years of unloading, maintenance and maintenance, followed by the dismantling of the reactor), and it was estimated to cost approximately £3.5 billion (£1991). 

Analysis conducted by nuclear power companies found that the most cost-effective decommissioning strategy is to continue to extend the maintenance and maintenance phase before dismantling, consistent with the decommissioning strategies of most European and American utilities. However, although the maintenance and maintenance phase may last 30 to 40 years, the proposed "delayed safe storage strategy" requires this phase to be nearly 130 years, divided into two monitoring periods. It is estimated that this will save 1.4 billion pounds and the combined decommissioning liabilities will be 2.1 billion pounds. 

Fast forward thirty years and we find ourselves at a critical moment. Although some have questioned whether extended maintenance and maintenance are still the best method, the first Magnox reactors have entered this stage. In the next ten years, all 26 reactors will enter this stage. With the rapid roll-off of AGR units (by 2030, the last reactor rolls off), there is not much time to consider alternatives. 

The nuclear market has partly shifted to accelerate the process of reactor decommissioning and outsourcing. This makes financial sense in many situations, especially if interest rates changed after the 2008 financial crisis. 

There are compelling arguments for why the accelerated decommissioning process should be accepted, ranging from determining that skilled labor is available to reducing the risk of potential future regulatory changes. However, the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has rejected such attempts in the past on the grounds that the lack of a geological repository is a major obstacle. 

The decommissioning method may create a cognitive risk that the reactor will not generate electricity for more than two-thirds of the time. Local acceptance is usually based on seeing the benefits of the factory, but it may be more difficult to sell 80 years after the end of power generation. It may also reinforce the popular argument surrounding nuclear decommissioning, which was firmly rooted in the early days of nuclear power development. The decommissioning of early nuclear facilities (usually at least partly used to produce nuclear weapons) poses considerable logistical challenges, which drive up costs and require decades of time frame. By maintaining the reactor for nearly 130 years of maintenance and maintenance, the perception of nuclear power as a complex, cumbersome, and expensive technology may be strengthened. 

It is important to understand our history, but it is also important not to be a prisoner of history. Thirty years ago, the idea of ​​extending maintenance and maintenance before nuclear decommissioning might make sense economically, but it did raise financial, public acceptance, or cognitive issues that must be resolved. 

The whole life cycle management of nuclear power, including decommissioning and waste management, should be a source of pride and a (perhaps contradictory) selling point. The challenge is to ensure that we proceed in a way that does not harm the long-term prospects of nuclear power. Once power generation ceases, what other energy sources are technically and financially responsible for managing their assets? 

About the author: John Lindberg, PhD student at King's College London and Imperial College London