Development of a multi criteria decision analysis framework for the assessment of integrated waste management options for irradiated graphite

Abrahamsen-Mills, Liam; Wareing, Alan; Fowler, Linda; Jarvis, Richard; Norris, Simon; Banford, Anthony

doi:10.1016/j.net.2020.10.008

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…AHP and SAW methods are methods that can be used to solve multi-criteria problems. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) provides a means to assess complex issues to support decision making (Abrahamsen-Mills et al, 2021) and policy making (Karimi et al, 2021). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is widely used for prioritization problems.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of AHP and SAW Methods for Optimization of Decision Recommendations

Kurniawati¹,

Lenti²,

Nugroho³

2021

JICP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in interest in decision making are one of the things that must be facilitated in decision support applications. The most basic difference of interest in decision making is the difference in the weight of the importance of each criterion used. Each decision maker has their own interest in the criteria used. If these differences can be facilitated properly, the resulting decision recommendations can be optimal, in this case more in line with the interests of the users. The model is designed using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Simple Additive Weight (SAW) methods, using 5 criteria. The final result of the AHP method is in the form of criteria weights that are in accordance with the interests of decision makers and in accordance with the consistency of the comparisons that have been given. The resulting weight will be used in the final calculation of SAW, namely in the calculation of alternative weights. By using AHP, the weight of the criteria becomes more subjective according to the interests of decision makers. Thus, the resulting alternative recommendations become more optimal because they are in accordance with the needs of decision makers.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of AHP and SAW Methods for Optimization of Decision Recommendations

Kurniawati¹,

Lenti²,

Nugroho³

2021

JICP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A review of radioactive waste processing and disposal from a life cycle environmental perspective

Clayton,

Kirk,

Banford

et al. 2024

Clean Techn Environ Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of nuclear power in a more sustainable, ‘net zero’ energy sector is an important focal point of research. Given the large volume of existing legacy wastes and the future waste arisings that nuclear expansion would entail, attention is needed in the ‘back-end’ of the nuclear fuel cycle: processing (including treatment and conditioning) and disposal of radioactive waste. The range of waste processing techniques already in operation is broad and complex, and many novel technologies are under development. However, whilst prior work only focused on technology development and direct emissions, particularly in post-processing and disposal, a life cycle perspective is underutilised. This review analyses the landscape of life cycle assessment (LCA) within the nuclear sector, focusing on radioactive waste management, decommissioning and disposal. A literature search yielded 225 journal articles plus additional grey literature, yet only eight relevant LCAs were identified. Most studies identified adopted power generation as a functional unit and focused on nuclear power plants currently in operation. The major research gap identified in this review is the lack of holistic life cycle thinking surrounding radioactive waste management caused by poor granularity of published data related to waste treatment, conditioning and disposal, making strategic analysis challenging from the perspective of sustainability. Future LCA work should focus on technologies and processes in the back-end nuclear fuel cycle with considerable granularity to allow system ‘hotspots’ to be identified and strategic research and policy decisions to be taken. Efforts should also be made to incorporate recent developments in radiological impact assessment methodologies such as UCrad. Graphical abstract

show abstract

Applicability of abrasive waterjet cutting to irradiated graphite decommissioning

Perotti

Mossini

Macerata

et al. 2023

Nuclear Engineering and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development of a multi criteria decision analysis framework for the assessment of integrated waste management options for irradiated graphite

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Implementation of AHP and SAW Methods for Optimization of Decision Recommendations

Implementation of AHP and SAW Methods for Optimization of Decision Recommendations

A review of radioactive waste processing and disposal from a life cycle environmental perspective

Applicability of abrasive waterjet cutting to irradiated graphite decommissioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About