Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa

supported. The Commission believes that the eventual implementation of deep geological disposal
is an essential condition for the continued use and possible expansion of nuclear power.’
Dr Hans Forsström of the IAEA opened the first session by saying that incredible technological advances
have been made in recent decades in the development of geological repositories. ‘We know
how to do it and we know how to show that it works. Our challenge is confidence-building in the
public and in our research. It must be improved,’ he said.
‘Who fails to plan plans to fail’
Time was one of the recurring themes of the conference. ‘Time is the only thing that will make radioactivity
entirely harmless,’ said Dr Hans D. K. Codée of COVRA in the Netherlands, ‘and time
is what we must manage.’
Mrs Dupuis of ANDRA noted that while it is crucial to make solutions available right away, providing
safety demonstrations are a major scientific challenge because they are done on ‘space- and
timescales that are way above the field of experimental capabilities’.
Communicating the unavoidably long-term nature of this kind of research is a real challenge. For
example, simply building an underground laboratory takes decades, while observing the movement
of a radioactive nuclide through a millimetre of rock might take as many years. These are also serious
considerations when it comes to continuity of funding support. Representatives of the European
Commission emphasised their commitment to enabling this continuity, as the disposal of nuclear
waste continues to be high on the political agenda.
Follow the money
The session on economical factors governing geological disposal programmes revealed that determining
the ultimate cost of a geological repository is a challenge that would puzzle the most ambitious
economist. Nuclear power offers high electricity yield and low impact on the carbon cycle;
however, each country is responsible for managing its own nuclear waste, and building a geological
repository costs as much as building a nuclear power plant. This can be a problem for countries
with few reactors. Importantly, the cost of operating such a facility for the required 100 or so years
before closing it up far exceeds the building costs. As facilities must be built and operated on such
long timescales, the exact costs are very difficult to pin down, and the question of financing becomes
exceedingly complex.
Dr Eero Patrakka of Posiva in Finland presented the case of his country’s costing and financing of a
geological repository. He explained, ‘The funds for radioactive waste management must be collected
in advance and they must be available when the waste management operations are carried
out’. However, while determining how much to put aside relies on sound cost assessment, costs
themselves (such as the price of copper, the cost of labour, or the effects of continuous research) are
ever changing.
‘Footing the bill’
Dr Patrakka of Posiva showed how seemingly small changes can have serious financial impacts on
the planning of geological repositories. For example, adding one tonne of spent fuel will add approximately
EUR 0.5 million to the overall costs; adding one year to operating time has an impact
of EUR 10 million; and a change in the price of copper of EUR 1 per kg will have an impact of
2