Publication Laka-library:
Future THORP Avoidable Costs (1998)
| Author | M.Sadnicki |
| Date | April 1998 |
| Classification | 2.05.8.35/10 (UNITED KINGDOM - SELLAFIELD - THORP) |
| Front | 
|
From the publication:
FUTURE THORP AVOIDABLE CASH FLOWS M.J.Sadnicki EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This study provides an important step towards answering the question: can the continued operation of THORP be justified? This is a crucial question because for operation to be justified, there must be clear benefits to weigh against the environmental, health, safety, security, and political detriments associated with reprocessing. As there is no longer any civil or military requirement for the plutonium separated by reprocessing, the case for continued operation must rest largely on whether there is a clear economic benefit. This study explores this question by examining the avoidable cash flows associated with the running of the plant in a typical baseload contract year. On the income side, these consist of the payments still to be received by BNFL from customers. On the costs side, they include operating costs and additional capital expenditure. If the annual payments are not significantly greater than these avoidable costs, then the economic case for continued operation starts to look weak. In such circumstances, a full avoidable costs analysis becomes essential. This should compare the avoidable cash flows of continued operation, with the avoidable cash flows of immediate THORP closure and extended spent fuel storage. NATURE OF THE ANALYSIS Attempting an independent analysis of THORP avoidable cash flows is far from straightforward. It entails making assumptions about a range of parameters - including annual spent fuel throughputs, the value of overseas and UK contracts, and operational costs - for which there is a chronic lack of information in the public domain. Not surprisingly, there is a significant range of potential values associated with certain parameters. The approach adopted in this paper, therefore, is to examine three main cases: Industry - using assumptions based on published BNFL statements; Central - using the author's estimate of reasonable central assumptions, taking into account relevant published material; Prudent - using risk-averse assumptions. To encourage discussion and further analysis, the bulk of the paper documents how assumptions for the key parameters have been derived in each case. The assumptions are summarised in the main text in Table 5.
This publication is only available at Laka on paper, not as pdf.
You can borrow the publication or request a copy. When we're available, this is possible for a small fee.