Economics of Nuclear Energy
The Joint Japan-IAEA
Nuclear Energy Management Schoolin Tokaimura, 11-29 June 2012
June 11, 2012
Tatsujiro Suzuki
Vice Chairman, Japan Atomic Energy Commission
Note: The views expressed here are of my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the
JAEC nor the government.

1Summary• Since the Fukushima Daii-ichi nuclear power plant accident,
re-examination of economics of nuclear power became amajor policy issue.
• The nuclear fuel cycle cost and new estimate for total
power generation costs incorporating accident risks,
government subsidies, etc. was published by thegovernment.
• It shows that nuclear power can be competitive with fossil
power generations but social costs associated with nuclear
accident risks could be significantly large.
• In addition, comparisons of nuclear fuel cycle options
including economics have been published by the JAEC
recently. They show that “direct disposal” fuel cycle option
is least expensive compared with other “total reprocessing”
option and “mixed” option.
2

New Energy Policy: Three Philosophies (July 29,2011) by Energy and Environment Min. Council(1)Three principles toward new best energy mix(reducing dependency on nuclear power,
strategic approach for energy security, complete
reevaluation of nuclear energy policy)(2) Three principles toward new energy system(realization of distributed energy system,
international contribution, multi-eyed approach)(3) Three principles toward national consensus(national debate in order to overcome “pro“ “anti-“ conflict, strategy based on objective
data, dialogue with various sectors of the public).
3

PM Noda’s Speech at UN High-level meeting on
Nuclear Safety and Security (11/09/22)• Japan will disclose to the international community all theinformation related to this accident, in both swift andaccurate manner.
• Japan is determined to raise the safety of nuclear power
generation to the highest level in the world.
• Japan stands ready to respond to the interest of countries
seeking to use nuclear power generation.
• Japan will also participate actively in efforts to ensure
nuclear security.
• Energy is the 'lifeblood' of the economy and serves as afoundation for the daily human lives.
• I should like to close my remarks by pledging that Japan, as
the country in which this accident occurred, will dedicate
itself to shouldering its responsibilities and taking action.
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/statement/201109/22speech_e.html
4

６．Towards Innovative Energy and Environmental Strategy－Structures for New Energy/Environmental Policy Making Processes－
End of 2011

By Mid-2011

Energy Best Mix○Cost Reevaluation○Scenario for reducing
dependence on nuclear power○Reform in energy
supply/demand structure○Expansion of renewable energy○Strategic utilization of resource○Robust industry structure andcreation of employment

Power
System○Supply stability and cost
reduction○Distributed power and energy
conservation○Managing nuclear power risk
○Reform of electric powerindustry structure including
unbundling

NuclearPower○Thorough examination of
nuclear energy policy○Assurance of nuclear safety

Policy Debate basedon Basic
Phikosophies issued
by the Min. Council

Energy & Env. Council
issue Basic Policy basedon policy debate at each
insititution

Energy & Env
CouncilMore
deliberation

New Strategy will be
published

EnergyBasicPlan
byMETI

Innovative Energy & Env.
Strategy

Basic Philosophies issued
by the Energy & Env. Min.
Council

2012

総合エネ調

METI etc

Energy & Env.
Council
METI etc

Checkand
Review by
Energy&Env
CouncilGreen
Innovation
Strategy
Industry
strategyforEnergyand Env.

○JAEC’s New Framework for Nuclear Energy
Policy5（４） 原子力 Nuclear Power Policy
高い安全性の確保と原発への依存度低減への挑戦: Securing
High Standard of Safety and Reducing Dependence on Nuclear Power

ミッション
Mission

優先課題
Issues・聖域なき検証・検討: No “sacred area”(taboo)
・原子力安全の徹底: Assuring Safety
・原発への依存度低減に関する国民的議論を踏まえた対応: National
Discussion on reducing dependence on nuclear energy
短期
Short

中期
Mid

長期
Long

○原発への依存度低減に○原発への依存度低減に○より高い安全性のもとでの活用と関する国民的議論を踏まえた 関する国民的議論を踏まえ原発への依存度低減に関するた対応
対応
国民的議論を踏まえた対応の決定
Utilization of existing nuclear power plants
Appropriate measures to Cirgy
with enhanced safety
Reducing dependency on
National discussion on reducing dependence the results based on
nuclear power
national discussion on
on nuclear energy
Appropriate measures toreducing dependence on
the results based on
nuclear energy
national discussion on
reducing dependence on
nuclear energy

6Administrative Organizations for Nuclear Energy Policy
Cabinet Office
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)・Formulates the Framework of Nuclear Energy Policy・Outlines the government budget for implementing
nuclear energy policy
・Review the administrative judgments of othergovernmental agencies under ‘the Law for the
Regulation of Nuclear Source Material, Nuclear
Fuel Material and Reactors’
etc.

ReportNuclear Safety Commission (NSC)・Development of the intellectual infrastructure
for ensuring nuclear safety
・Ensuring safety of nuclear facilities
・Nuclear disaster countermeasures
・Promoting dialog on nuclear safety with thegeneral public
etc.

Basic policies & Principles

Related Governmental Organizations
Ministry of Foreign Affairs(MOFA)•Diplomatic policies forpeaceful use of Science andNuclear energy•Negotiation and cooperation
with the foreign government,
participation to theinternational organization forpeaceful use of nuclear
energy•Preparation and enforcement
for conclusion of nuclear
international engagement
etc.

Ministry of Education, Sports,
Culture, Science and Technology(MEXT)•Nuclear policies on science andtechnology•Nuclear development for the
purpose of improving the levelof science and technology•Regulation on use of nuclear
reactors for experiment andresearch, nuclear fuel resource
and materials•Prevention of radioactive
hazards
etc.

Ministry of Economy, Tradeand Industry(METI)
Agency for Natural Resources
and Energy•Nuclear policies for energy use•Development of nuclear
engineering for energy use
Nuclear and Industrial Safety
Agency (NISA)•Regulation on project of nuclear
refinement, processing, storage,
reprocessing and disposal, andon nuclear power generation
facilities
etc.

Other related ministries

・Ministry of Internal Affairs
and Communications
・Ministry of Health, Laborand Welfare
・Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries
・Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport
・Ministry of the Environment7etcJapan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC)○The Role of Japan Atomic Energy Commission

The Japan Atomic Energy Commission is set up in the Cabinet Officeand has five commissioners. Its mission is to conduct planning,deliberations, and decision-making regarding basic policy for
research, development, and utilization of nuclear energy, including theformulation of the Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy except
matters related to nuclear safety. When the JAEC deems it necessary
as a part of its assigned mandate, JAEC can recommend and demand
reports of the head of relevant administrative organization through thePrime Minister.
Members： 5 (appointed by the Prime Minister with the consent of the House of Representatives and House of Councilors)

Chairman
Dr. Shunsuke KONDO

Vice Chairman
Dr. Tatsujiro SUZUKI

Commissioner
Ms. Etsuko AKIBA

Commissioner
Dr. Mie OBA

Commissioner8
Dr. Akira OMOTOJAEC’s Activities for Nuclear
Energy Policy• Restarted the deliberation process for new Framework
for Nuclear Energy Policy (Sept. 27, 2011)– It was suspended after the 3/11 Fukushima accident– Members of the Committee have been changed slightly toreflect changing circumstances after the accident– Major issues: Safety, Cost, Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle
Options, Waste Management, International Perspectives,R&D planning, etc.

• Established Sub-Committee on Issues for Nuclear
Power and Fuel Cycle Technology Technologies– 7 expert members (Chair: Tatsujiro Suzuki)– Identify options and criteria for evaluations– Identify key differences of cost estimates/evaluations overdifferent options– Submit key findings to the JAEC (as necessary)9Cost Comparisons of Nuclear
Fuel Cycle Options

10

Cost Estimation Conditions

Estimation Models• This estimation will be used for comparisons withgeneration costs by electric systems, the fuel cost in
nuclear power generation cost are estimated using the“model plant system.”• Two models are used for estimation:– With nuclear fuel cycle– Without nuclear fuel cycle

Reprocessing model
Direct disposal model• Additionally, the present status of energy supply inJapan is still unfolding; estimations are being used
Latest model
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc.,
Material No. 1 (Japanese)

11

Estimation Model

Reprocessing Model• Spent fuel is reprocessed and recycled.
Uranium
fuelproduction

Powergeneration
5 years

Reprocessing,
MOX fuel
production
3 years

1 yearPower
generation

Reprocessing,
MOX fuel
production

Powergeneration･････

・・・・・ Repeated

Disposal of radioactive waste• All spent fuel is reprocessed.
• Recovered Plutonium is recycled as MOX fuel.
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)
12Estimation Model

Direct Disposal Model• All spent fuel is directly disposed after interim storage.

Uranium
fuelproduction

Powergeneration

Interim storage

Direct Disposal

5 years

59 years

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)
13

Estimation Model (reference)

Latest Model• Part of spent fuel is reprocessed and recycled, and theremaining fuel is reprocessed after interim storage.
Uranium
fuelproduction

Powergeneration

Reprocessing,
MOX fuel
production

5 years

20 years 1 year

Reproces
Power
sing,
generation
MOX fuel
production
・・・・・ RepeatedPower
generation･････

Disposal of radioactive waste
Interimstorage
50 years

Reprocessing,
MOX fuel
production
1 yearPower
generation･････

・・・・・ Repeated

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)14

Cost Estimation Conditions

Cycle Cost Estimation Conditions (Common to All Models)
Item

Cost Subcom. (2004)

Uranium fuel enrichment

BWR 3.8%
PWR 4.1%

This time
RP modelLatest model

BWR 3.7%
PWR 4.6%

DD modelPWR 4.5%

Average burn-up atdischarged

UO2 fuel: 45,000 MWd/t
MOX fuel: 40,000 MWd/t←

Incore fuel dwelling time

5 years←

Heat efficiency

34.5%

←

Exchange rate

121.98 yen/dollar

85.74 yen/dollar

Discount rate

0, 1, 2, 3, 4 %0, 1, 3, 5 %Reprocessing andinterim storage ratio

64：36

50：50

Next generation
production ratio

15%

←

RP
model,
latestmodel

RP: Reprocessing Plant, DD: Direct Disposal Site
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)15

Environmental Changes from Last Estimation

Front-end• Recent spot prices of uranium concentrate (yellow
cake: U3O8) have fluctuated significantly. Although
the past market price were stable around $10/lb.,
recent price has increased to as high as $130
temporarily and it is fluctuating between $40 and$60/lbU3O8 during 2008 to 2010.
• As for exchange rates, the yen has strengthened
significantly: although the rate in August 2004 wasaround 110 yen/dollar, an average rate is around86 yen/dollar in 2010.
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)16

Environmental Changes from Last Investigation

Back-end• A fund system for reprocessing, etc. was established. (refer to p.12)– The costs concerning reprocessing, including decommissioning costs and TRU
waste disposal costs, have been reserved from 2005. The fund is collectedfrom electricity charges.

• Test operation using spent fuel (active tests) started at the
Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant in March 2006.
– The tests became stagnant in the vitrification process of high level radioactive
waste, and the completion was postponed to October 2012.

• Four NPP started to use MOX fuel.
• Construction of the Rokkasho MOX Fuel Fabrication Plant started in
October 2010.
– The construction is expected to be completed in March 2016.

• Construction of the first spent fuel interim storage facilities in Japan
started at Mutsu City of Aomori Prefecture in August 2010.
– The construction is expected to be completed in July 2012.
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc.,
Material No. 1 (Japanese)17

Environmental Changes from Last Investigation

Development of System and Provision for Spent
Fuel Reprocessing Fund

• The Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Fund Act was enforced in2005 (for the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant)– Costs of reprocessing at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant are reserved for
future use.
– The yearly assignments of reprocessing costs and relevant spent fuelgenerated are simultaneously converted when the spent fuel is generated,using the discount rate to find the levelized cost for unit weight.

• The report of the Investment Environment Improvement
Subcommittee (2007) of the Electricity Industry Committee
indicated a decision to include the costs of reprocessing the
spent fuel other than that reprocessed at the Rokkasho
Reprocessing Plant in the reserve.
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc.,
Material No. 1 (Japanese)18

Costs of individual operations by processes (reprocessing)

Reprocessing Fund Scheme The reprocessing of nuclear fuel, which forms the basis of nuclear fuel cycle, requires a significantly long
period and massive amounts of money, and ensuring the safety and transparency is essential for securing thenecessary funds. For this reason, utilities deposit the money required for reprocessing according to the law*.
 The amount of reserved funds is estimated by the government, based on the notifications submitted from theutilities.
* Law: Act concerning Funding and Management of Reserve Fund for Reprocessing of Spent Fuel in Nuclear Generation (2005 law No. 48)
Fixed deposit,
etc. forpurchase of
Financial bonds
institute
Capital andinterest

Radioactive Waste
Management Funding andResearch Center (designatedfund managing body)

Consumer

Reservation of fund for reprocessing, etc.

Management of reserved fund for reprocessingConfirmation of expenditures for reprocessing

ReservefundPowersupplyAssignment andsupervision

Government

Recoveryofreserve

Utility(licensee of specified commercial
reactor operation)

Electricity bill(partially used as
the capital ofreserve fund)(unit: 100 millionyen)

Expenditure forreprocessing(METI Ministry)

Notice of execution
Planning andplan, etc. ofenforcement ofreprocessing, etc.
the Spent Nuclear
Fuel Reprocessing
Fund Act forcarrying out
reprocessing and
Notice of reserved related operation
fund

Estimatedsum
Balance

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

126,850

126,873

127,038

118,958

121,308

122,516

10,384

12,47915,682

18,38921,443

24,416* Estimated sum in 2011: 12,223,700 million yen (Estimated based on notices from utilities in March 2011)* The estimated sum is calculated according to the law.

 The estimated sum is the costs forreprocessing of spent fuel (32,000 tU) at
the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant.

Notice of execution
plan, etc. of
reprocessing, etc.

Reprocessing operator, etc.

Basic scheme of reserve fun for reprocessing

Source: Data created by the Cabinet Office from data
presented by the Natural Resources and Energy Agency

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc.,
Material No. 1 (Japanese)19

Costs of Individual Operations by Processes (reprocessing)Total Cost of Reprocessing, etc.

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc.,
Material No. 1 (Japanese)20

Costs of Individual Operations by Processes (disposal of high-level radioactive waste)

Contribution Scheme for Final Disposal Fund
 Considering the importance of a systematic accumulation of funds for the final disposal of vitrified radwastes, the Radioactive
Waste Management Funding and Research Center was designated as the fund managing body in 2000 according to therelated law, and manages a fund with contributions from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO).

 The government reviews the unit price of contribution required for the reserve every year.
* Law: Designated Radioactive Waste Final Disposal Act, Act No. 117 of 2000
Fixed deposit,
etc. forFinancial purchase ofbonds
institute
Capital andinterest

Radioactive Waste Management
Funding and Research Center(designated fund managing body)

Assignment andsupervision

The
Government

Management of reserved fund for final disposal
Confirmation of expenditures for final disposal

Nuclear Waste Management
Organization of Japan(authorized association）
Final disposal,  Construction, remodeling andmaintenance of facilities,  Selection of survey
areas,  Collection of contributions, etc.

Execution plan
Approval by theGovernment

Permission andsupervision
Contingency plan
Restraint of
dismantlement

Contribution
PowersupplyConsumerElectricity bill(partially used as
the capital ofreserve fund)Utilities(licensee of specified
commercial reactor operation)(Unit: 100 million yen)

(METI Ministry)

Recoveryof
Fund

External
management ofcontributedmoney

Reservation of final disposal fund

 Basic policies
 Basic
direction of
final disposal
 Assent oflocal residents
to the disposalof radioactivewaste Final disposalplan Time andquantity ofdisposal

Unit price ofcontribution

Basic scheme of final disposal fund2000

Estimatedsum
Balance

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

29,30528,911

28,81928,297

27,84327,652

0

1,020

1,705

2,372

2,940

3,566

(Unit: 100 million yen)
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Estimated
27,72827,87927,582
27,922
27,769
sum
4,241
4,999
5,763
6,498
7,394
Balance* Estimated sum in 2011: 2,718,300 million yen* The estimated sum is calculated according to the accumulation method
ensured at the Nuclear Energy Group of the Advisory Committee for Energy.

 The estimated sum is the costs required for the geologicaldisposal of 40,000 bodies of vitrified radwaste by NUMO.
Source: Data created by the Cabinet Office from data
presented by the Natural Resources and Energy Agency

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc.,
Material No. 1 (Japanese)21

Costs of Individual Operations by Processes

Cost Estimates (Reprocessing, etc.)
Base Year
30.0

27.9

Converted to present values

25.8
25.0

22.6
18.7

18.1

18.6

18.5

17.2
15.4

15.0
10.1
5.2

5.0

4.2
0.8

1.1
2080 2084

10.4
10.0

2075 2079

Reprocessing costs(10 billion yen/year)

19.1

20.0

2070 2074

2065 2069

2060 2064

2055 2059

2050 2054

2045 2049

2040 2044

2035 2039

2030 2034

2025 2029

2020 20242015 20192010 20142005 20090.0

0(ton/year)

Reprocessing operation plan

200
400

140

104

80

181
320
480

600
640

800
1,000

800800800800800 800800800800 800800 800800800 800800800 800800 800800800 800800800 800800 800800800800 800800800800800 800

800

Converted to present values

Cost per ton = Reprocessing cost [converted to base year’s value] / Reprocessing
Amount [converted to base year’s value]
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc.,
Material No. 1 (Japanese)22

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost

Costs for Various Models (1) - Discount rate: 0% and 1% (yen/kWh)

Item

Discount rate: 0%
DirectLatestReprocessing
disposal
model
model
model

Discount rate: 1%
DirectLatestReprocessing
disposal
model
model
model

Uranium fuel

0.62

0.72

0.62

0.65

0.75

0.68

MOX fuel

0.17

-

0.17

0.16

-

0.12

(Front-end total)

0.79

0.72

0.79

0.82

0.75

0.80

Reprocessing, etc.

1.10

-

1.10

1.06

-

0.79

Interim storage

-

0.14

0.07

-

0.12

0.06

HLW disposal

0.24

-

0.24

0.16

-

0.12

Direct disposal-

0.41 - 0.48--

0.24 -0.28-(Back-end total)

1.34

0.56 -0.63

1.41

1.21

0.37 - 0.41

0.98

2.14

1.28 - 1.35

2.21

2.03

1.11 - 1.15

1.78

Total

Note) The total may not correspond to the sum of all the items due to rounding.

(Sending end)

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)23

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost

Costs for Various Models (2) - Discount rate: 3% and 5% (yen/kWh)

Item

Discount rate: 3%
DirectLatestReprocessing
disposal
model
model
model

Discount rate: 5%
DirectLatestReprocessing
disposal
model
model
model

Uranium fuel

0.73

0.81

0.77

0.81

0.88

0.86

MOX fuel

0.15

-

0.07

0.14

-

0.04

(Front-end total)

0.88

0.81

0.84

0.94

0.88

0.90

Reprocessing, etc.

1.03

-

0.46

1.04

-

0.30

Interim storage

-

0.09

0.05

-

0.07

0.04

HLW disposal

0.08

-

0.04

0.05

-

0.01

Direct disposal-

0.10 - 0.11--

0.05 - 0.05-

(Back-end total)

1.11

0.19 - 0.21

0.55

1.08

0.12 - 0.12

0.36

1.98

1.00 - 1.02

1.39

2.03

1.00 - 1.01

1.26

Total

Note) The total may not correspond to the sum of all the items due to rounding.

(Sending end)

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)24

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost

Results of Estimation• Front-end– In addition to yen appreciation in the exchange rate, substantial increases in the uranium
concentrate price affect the costs of the direct disposal model.
– The proportion of MOX fuel loaded in reactors is small and the effects of MOX fuel cost in
the front-end costs are insignificant.

• Reprocessing, etc.
– The difference between the costs of the reprocessing and direct disposal models is about 1
yen/kWh (at 3% discount rate), and this is caused by the presence of reprocessing etc.
– When the nuclear fuel recycle is included, the difference between the costs of the
reprocessing and latest models is about 0.6 yen/kWh (at 3% discount rate), and this iscaused by the length of storage period.

A comprehensive evaluation of various nuclear fuel recycle options will be
continued, including the perspectives other than economical efficiency.
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)25

Sensitivity Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost

Sensitivity Analysis (1) Reprocessing & MOX Cost•

The reprocessing, etc. and MOX fuel cost are subject to sensitivity analysis using asensitivity of 1.5 times of unit cost (sensitivity analysis case) for the latest model(basic case).

• 【Reprocessing, etc.】– Complete denial is hard for a potential decrease in the reprocessing amount(reduced operating rate) due to the delayed achievement of the rated
reprocessing quantity (800tU/year), and a potential increase in the cost of
construction for the planned expansion of facilities in the future, and apossibility of additional investments for maintaining the operating rate.

• 【MOX fuel】– Construction cost have increased from 120 billion to 190 billion yen owing
mainly to 1) increases in the price of construction materials and 2)
requirement of antiseismic installation. Complete denial is hard for a potential
increase in the construction cost due to the same reasons until the time theconstruction is completed in March 2016.
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)26

Sensitivity Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost

Results of Sensitivity Analysis (1) Reprocessingand MOX costs(yen/kWh)(Discount rate: 3%)

Latest model
Item
Basic caseSensitivity analysis
case

Cost ratio

Uranium fuel

0.77



---

MOX fuel

0.07

0.10

1.5

Reprocessing, etc.

0.46

0.68

1.5

Interim storage

0.05



---

HLW disposal

0.04



---

Total

1.39

1.64

1.2

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)27

Sensitivity Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost

Sensitivity Analysis (2) Front-end Costs• The element of uranium concentrate in the uranium fuel price issubject to sensitivity analysis using a sensitivity of 2.0 times(sensitivity analysis case) for the reprocessing, direct disposal andlatest models (basic cases).
– The present spot uranium price is approx. $140/kgU, but the fluctuation in thelatest three years ranged $100 to $180/kgU.
– There is no publication for future price estimates by public organizations, but thereport by OECD/NEA and IAEA is attached for reference.
• "Uranium 2009” (July 2010) published by OECD/NEA and IAEA analyzed the amount of
resources based on the new product costs up to $260/kgU (formerly up to $130/kgU)
which reflect the rising uranium production costs and the basic moves of the uranium
markets.

– Considering the sharply rising spot uranium, which once exceeded $260/kgU,
the future hike of the uranium price around twice the present level is taken into
account.

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)28

Sensitivity Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost

Results of Sensitivity Analysis (2) Front-end Costs(yen/kWh)

Reprocessing modelSensitivity
analysis Cost ratio
caseDirect disposal modelSensitivity
analysis Cost ratio
caseLatest modelSensitivity
analysis Cost ratio
case

Item

Basic
case

Uranium fuel

0.73

1.04

1.4

0.81

1.16

1.4

0.77

1.10

1.4

MOX fuel

0.15



---

---

---

---

0.07



---

Reprocessing,
etc.

1.03



---

---

---

---

0.46



---

Interim storage

---

---

---

0.09



---

0.05



---

HLW disposal

0.08



－

---

---

---

0.04



---

Direct disposal

---

---

---



---

---

---

---

Total

1.98

2.29

1.2

0.10 0.11
1.00 1.02

1.35 1.36

1.3 - 1.4

1.39

1.72

1.2

Basic
case

Basic
case

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)29Sensitivity Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost

Results of Sensitivity Analysis (3) Burial Disposal Costs


The HLW disposal and direct disposal are subject to sensitivity analysis with
1.5 times costs.
Discount rate: 3% (yen/kWh)Direct disposal model
Item

Basic caseSensitivity
analysis case

Cost ratio

Basic caseSensitivity
analysis case

Cost ratio

U fuel

0.81



-

0.77



-

MOX fuel

-

-

-

0.07



-

Reprocessing,
etc.

-

-

-

0.46



-

0.09



-

0.05



-

-

-

-

0.04

0.05

-

0.10 - 0.11

0.15 - 0.17

-

-

-

-

1.00 - 1.02

1.05 - 1.07

1.05 - 1.05

1.39

1.41

1.01

Interimstorage
HLW
disposal
Directdisposal
Total•

Latest model

The impact on the whole cycle is on order of 1% in the latest model which contains HLW disposal, or
5% in the direct disposal model though the latter depends on the disposal method.

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_1.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1 (Japanese)30

Accident Risk Cost Method
Method• Model LWR plant (1200MWe, capacity factor=60,70,80%,
consider site characteristics variations such population
density)• Economic damage includes; lost assets (onsite and offsite),land decontamination, evacuation/relocation, loss of job,
inspection of foods, human health (mental anguish), othersocio-economic damages such as compensation to rumorinduced damage in the market• Economic damage grouped into one-time damage (rumorinduced and inspection: not proportional to the amount of
released FP) and yearly recurrent damages (proportional tolevel of contamination)• As a result, accident cost is estimated to be about 5 trillion
yen based on report by the Management and FinanceCommittee for TEPCO
31

Estimation of the Accident Risk Cost based on the
Frequency of Occurrence of Damage
Accident Risk Cost of a Model Plant(based on 5 trillion yen accident costs)

Frequency of occurrence(/reactor year)

Accident risk cost of the model plant, by
operation rate(yen/kWh)

Additional cost per increase in theamount of damage by 1 trillion yen(yen/kWh)

Utilization
factor60%

Utilization
factor70%

Utilization
factor80%

Utilization
factor60%

Utilization
factor70%

Utilization
factor
80%

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.28

0.24

0.21

0.06

0.05

0.04

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.32

0.27

0.24

1.0×10-5(IAEA safety goal for an earlylarge release from an existing
reactor)

3.5×10-4（Frequency of severe accidents
at commercial reactors aroundthe world; equivalent to once
every 57 years[1])2.0×10-3(Frequency of severe accidents
at commercial reactors in Japan;
equivalent to once every 10
years[1])[1] Frequency of occurrence of accidents on the condition that 50 power reactors are in operation

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_2.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc.,
Material No. 2 (Japanese)32

Estimation of the Accident Risk Cost in Reference to theInsurance Scheme
Estimation of the Accident Risk Cost under the U.S. Mutual Aid Scheme••

Amount of damage, including expenses for decommissioning reactors, as estimated by the
Subcommittee in relation to the model plant: 4.9936 trillion yen
Exclusively for the purpose of making estimation, the Subcommittee calculated the amount ofdamage as 5 trillion yen based on the assumption that there is a mutual assistance scheme fornuclear plant operators in reference to the Price-Anderson Act. As a result of sensitivity analysis,
the estimated amount of damage nearly doubled to 10 trillion yen.
Amount ofdamagePeriod ofpayment

Total nuclear power
generation [1]5 trillion yen

0.45 yen/kWh
40 years

10 trillion yen

Accident risk cost

280.0 billion kWh0.89 yen/kWh[1] Actual result in FY2010, Energy and Environment Council– The amount of damage could be further reduced if it is shared among nuclear plant operators
around the world.
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/seimei/111110_2.pdf
10 Nov. 2011 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc.,
Material No. 2 (Japanese)33All Reprocessing

Latest Model

Direct Disposal• http://www.npu.go.jp/policy/policy09/pdf/20
111221/siryo3.pdf

Yen/kWh

Back End

Front
End

出所：コスト等検証委員会報告書、２０１１年１２月１９日
http://www.npu.go.jp/policy/policy09/pdf/20111221/siryo3.pdf

34

Costs associated with accident

Yen/kWh

Subsidiaries
8.9 yen/kWh if total
accident costs is 6 trill yen.
It will increase 0.1 yen/kWh
If total accident costs increase
1 trillion yen.

Capital cost
O&M
Fuel cycle
Additional cost

2004

2011
Nuclear Power Generation Costs (2004, 2011)

出所：コスト等検証委員会報告書、２０１１年１２月１９日
http://www.npu.go.jp/policy/policy09/pdf/20111221/siryo3.pdf
35

Biomass
Wind

Nuclear Coal

Small
Hydro

oil

PV
Gas
Co-gen Efficiency
Improvement

Geothermal
LNG

出所：コスト等検証委員会報告書、２０１１年１２月１９日
http://www.npu.go.jp/policy/policy09/pdf/20111221/siryo3.pdf

36

Summary of economics of nuclear
power• Total reprocessing option is most expensive among
three options, and it is about 2 yen/kWh, and cost of
direct disposal option is about 1 yen/kWh.
• Cost associated with accident is difficult to estimate,but it is around 0.5 yen/kWh, based on the current costestimate. This could increase by 0.1 yen/kWh each if
total accident cost increase 1 trillion.
• Total nuclear power generation cost is estimated to bearound 8.9 yen/kWh, which is still competitive withother fossil fuel power generation. But the costs
associated with risk could be significantly high.
37Comparison of Fuel Cycle Policy
Options for Japan up to 2030

38

Comparison of Fuel Cycle Options- Criteria for Assessment Short Term
• Spent Fuel Management• International Perspective• Issues associated with policy change
Mid-Long Term
• Total costs• Energy security, uranium saving• Waste management and disposal• Flexibility
39

Three Basic Policy Options• Total Reprocessing Policy:
All spent nuclear fuel is to be reprocessed and recovered
uranium and plutonium will be used based on theassumption that Fast Breeder Reactor(FBR)/Fast Reactor(FR) will be commercialized.
• Reprocessing/Direct Disposal Mix Policy:
Spent nuclear fuel is either reprocessed or directly
disposed of. FBR/FR is considered one of energy options for
uncertain future.
• Direct Disposal Policy
Spent nuclear fuel will be stored and eventually directly
disposed of without reprocessing. FBR/FR is not considered
as an option.
40

Flow/Scenario of Policy Options
Options
All Reprocessing

Short Term

Mid Term

Long term

ReprocessReprocessFBR

LWR-MOX

Storage

FR

Storage
LWR-MOX

Mixed Policy
LWR-MOX(limited)

All Direct Disposal

Long term storage

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/tyoki/hatukaku/siryo/siryo15/siryo3-1.pdf
16 May 2012 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 3-1(Japanese)

Disposal41

1. All Reprocessing Scenario

Spent fuel will be reprocessed at Rokkasho reprocessing plant and the rest will
be stored until further reprocessing.
MOX spent fuel will be reprocessed based on the assumption that FBR/FR will
be commercialized.

Policy Options Short Term
All Reprocessing

Mid Term

ReproceessLong Term
ReprocessFBR

LWR-MOX

Storage

FR

Storage
LWR-MOX

Flow of scenario

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/tyoki/hatukaku/siryo/siryo15/siryo3-1.pdf
16 May 2012 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 3-1(Japanese)422. Mixed Policy Scenario

Spent fuel will be reprocessed at Rokkasho, but the decision to reprocess or to
be disposed of will not be made with the rest of spent fuel which will be stored
until such decision will be made.
FBR/FR R&D will be continued and the decision to commercialize or not will bedecided later. If not, MOX spent fuel will be directly disposed of.
Decision to reprocess or not

Policy Options

Short Term

Mid Term

再処理Long Term
再処理

FBR

LWR-MOX

Storage

StorageFRdecision

LWR-MOX

Mixed Option
Flow of Scenario
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/tyoki/hatukaku/siryo/siryo15/siryo3-1.pdf
16 May 2012 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 3-1(Japanese)

Disposal43

3. Direct Disposal Scenario

Stop reprocessing immediately, and all spent fuel will be stored for long term
storage until directly disposed of.
Existing plutonium stockpile will be used as MOX fuel until all stock will be
consumed.

Policy Option

Short Term

Mid Term

Long Term

Flow of Scenario

MOX use（Disposition of existing Pu stockpile ）Direct Disposal
optionLong Term Storage

DisposalLong term storage before disposal

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/tyoki/hatukaku/siryo/siryo15/siryo3-1.pdf
16 May 2012 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 3-1(Japanese)44

Conditions of Evaluation-Nuclear Share in Energy Mix4 nuclear share options based on discussion
at the fundamental issues subcommitteeof the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy

Nuclear Share Option I(Nuclear Share approx. 35 % :Corresponding to Installed Capacity approx. 50GW)

Nuclear Share Option II(Nuclear Share approx. 20 % :Corresponding to Installed Capacity approx. 30GW)

Nuclear Share Option III(Nuclear Share approx. 15% :Corresponding to Installed Capacity approx. 20GW)

Nuclear Share Option IV(Nuclear Share approx. 0%)

Present

２０２０

２０３０ A.D.

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/tyoki/hatukaku/siryo/siryo15/siryo3-1.pdf
16 May 2012 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 3-1(Japanese)
45

Method of Economic Analysis-Schematic of Calculation (Total Reprocessing)Fiscal allocation expanding total back-end cost for 32ktU spent fuel
Cost included in calculation

Working
cost

Duration ofoperation

Duration of
decommission

Duration of disposal(over 300 years)

Interim storage of spent fuelGeological disposal of
vitrified waste etc.

Operation of reprocessing
Depreciation (Construction)

2005
2030
Present

Decommission

D.C.

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/tyoki/hatukaku/siryo/siryo15/siryo1-1.pdf
16 May 2012 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1-1(Japanese)
46

Method of Economic Analysis-Schematic of Calculation (Total Direct Disposal)Fiscal allocation expanding total back-end cost for 32ktU spent fuel
Cost included in calculation

Not considering cost
paid before 2011
Working
cost

Duration of storage
Duration of disposal(over 300 years)

Duration of
decommission

Geological disposal of spent
fuel etc.
Decommission

2005
2030
Present

Interim storage of spent fuelD.C.

Sum of cost to directly dispose spent fuel discharged from reactors until 2030
and cost to decommission Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant(Assuming the decommission to be started from 2012)
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/tyoki/hatukaku/siryo/siryo15/siryo1-1.pdf
16 May 2012 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1-1(Japanese)47Economic Analysis of Fuel Cycle-Total Estimated CostsCalculation of the total prospective cost:
RP construction + SF Reprocessing + Disposal of vitrified waste and/or SF + RP Decommission + etc.
– Payment by 2011 – Depreciation for RRP
Unit: trillion yen
Discount rate: 0 %F.C. Option 1
Total
reprocessing

F.C. Option 2
Coexistence of reprocessing/disposal
All interim-storage SF
is reprocessed.

All interim-storage SF is directly
disposed.

F.C. Option 3
Total disposal

Uranium fuel
MOX fuel(Sum of front-end)

4.56
0.75
(5.31)

4.56
0.75(5.31)

4.56
0.75(5.31)

4.94
0.16(5.10)

Reprocess etc.
Interim Storage
HLW disposal
Direct disposal(Sum of back-end)

9.94
0.18
2.97

9.94
0.18
2.97

(13.1)(13.1)

8.58
0.18
2.68
0.52～0.61(12.0～12.0)

1.78
1.82
0.04
5.19～6.07(8.83～9.71)

Total sum

18.4

18.4

17.3～17.4

13.9～14.8

Other cost would be added by amendment in previous commitments between
Government and local governments.
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/tyoki/hatukaku/siryo/siryo15/siryo1-1.pdf
16 May 2012 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1-1(Japanese)48Economic Analysis of Fuel Cycle-Total Estimated Costs Reference data in the case of discount rate: 3 %Unit: trillion yen
Discount rate: 3 %F.C. Option 1
Total
reprocessing

F.C. Option 2
Coexistence of reprocessing/disposal
All interim-storage SF
is reprocessed.

All interim-storage SF is directly
disposed.

F.C. Option 3
Total disposal

Uranium fuel
MOX fuel(Sum of front-end)

3.57
0.57
（4.14）

3.57
0.57（4.14）

3.57
0.57（4.14）

3.85
0.14(3.99)

Reprocess etc.
Interim Storage
HLW disposal
Direct disposal(Sum of back-end)

4.45
0.08
0.88

4.45
0.08
0.88

(5.41)(5.41)

4.22
0.07
0.86
0.08～0.09(5.23～5.24)

1.19
1.11
0.02
1.19～1.36(3.51～3.67)

Total sum

9.5

9.5

9.4

7.5～7.7

Other cost would be added by amendment in previous commitments between
Government and local governments.
Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/tyoki/hatukaku/siryo/siryo15/siryo1-1.pdf
16 May 2012 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1-1(Japanese)49

Fuel Cycle Economics in Variation of
Options (Summary)～4 Nuclear Share Options～
1. Nuclear share: 35 % (Installed capacity: 50 GW)
2. Nuclear share: 20 % (Installed capacity: 30 GW)
3. Nuclear share: 15 % (Installed capacity: 20 GW)
4. Nuclear share: 0 %～3 Fuel Cycle Options～
1. Total reprocessing
2. Mixed option
3. Total disposal○For all nuclear share option, total expense of F.C. option 3 is less than the other F.C. options.
○As for F.C. option 3, SF stored in Aomori pref. may have to be sent back and under the worst case,nuclear power operation could be suspended if new SF storage capacity is not available.

Total Expense of Fuel Cycle (Unit: trillion yen)

<Discount rate: 0 %>F.C. Option 1
Total reprocessing

F.C. Option 2
Coexistence ofreprocessing/disposal

F.C. Option 3
Total disposal

Nuclear Share Option I: 35 %18.4

17.3～18.4

13.9～14.8

Nuclear Share Option II: 20 %15.4

15.3～15.4

12.0～12.8

Nuclear Share Option III: 15 %

14.4

14.4

10.9～11.6

Nuclear Share Option IV: 0 %－－8.1～8.7

Ref. : http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/tyoki/hatukaku/siryo/siryo15/index.htm
16 May 2012 Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, etc., Material No. 1-1, No. 1-2,
No. 1-3, No. 1-4 (Japanese)50

Overall Assessment• Total Reprocessing policy option:

This might be the best option if nuclear power will beeither maintained or expanded in the future. But the
total economic cost could be the largest whilesocial/political cost could be almost none.

• Mixed policy option:
If nuclear power is declined or its future is uncertain,
this option is the best, while social/political cost could
be moderately high.

• Direct disposal policy option:
If nuclear power will be phased out soon, this option isthe best. The total cost is smallest while social/politicalcosts could be largest.
51