Economic Viability of Metallic Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Fuel in Korea

Abstract

This paper evaluates whether SFR metallic nuclear fuel can be economical. To make this determination, the cost of SFCF (SFR fuel cycle facilities) was estimated, and the break-even point of the manufacturing cost of SFR metallic nuclear fuel for direct disposal option was then calculated. As a result of the cost estimation, the levelized unit cost (LUC) for SFCF was calculated to be 5,311 $/kgHM, and the break-even point was calculated to be $5,267/kgHM. Therefore, the cost difference between LUC and the break-even point is not only small but is also within the relevant range of the uncertainty level of Class 3 in accordance with a generic cost estimate classification matrix of AACE (the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering). This means it is very difficult to judge the economical feasibility of SFR metallic nuclear fuel because as of today there are no commercial facilities in Korea or the world. The economic feasibility of SFR metallic nuclear fuel, however, will be enhanced if the mass production of SFCF becomes possible in the future.

Break-Even Point Analysis of Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Capital Investment Cost Comparing the Direct Disposal Option and Pyro-Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Nuclear Fuel Cycle Option in Korea

“…The PWR fuel dry transportation and storage cost for direct disposal can be calculated using Equation (18).…”

Feasibility Studies on Pyro-SFR Closed Fuel Cycle and Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Line with the Latest National Policy and Strategy of Korea

“…quantitative and economic studies have been reported on the back-end of fuel cycle options for Korea [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. However, most of the previous studies were conducted based upon the assumptions proposed by the investigators rather than upon the official national policy [6][7][8][14][15][16].…”

“…However, most of the previous studies were conducted based upon the assumptions proposed by the investigators rather than upon the official national policy [6][7][8][14][15][16]. In addition, neither detailed estimation of the total amount of SNF and TRUs in terms of radioactivity nor relative radiological toxicities of the SNF to be produced from all units of Korean NPPs have been openly reported.…”

“…In addition, neither detailed estimation of the total amount of SNF and TRUs in terms of radioactivity nor relative radiological toxicities of the SNF to be produced from all units of Korean NPPs have been openly reported. Though a few investigators have calculated the anticipated cost for a nuclear fuel cycle in Korea, no detailed economic feasibility studies have been reported on the overall costs and benefits from open or closed fuel cycle nuclear energy systems being considered in Korea [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. In this context, the electricity generation from SFRs as well as NPPs (i.e., PWRs and PHWRs) could be considered as a potential benefit from the fuel cycle.…”

Analysis of Unit Process Cost for an Engineering-Scale Pyroprocess Facility Using a Process Costing Method in Korea

“…Korea, which is one of Asia's advanced nuclear nations, operates a total of 23 nuclear power plant units (19 PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) units and four CANDU (CANada Deuterium Uranium) units) [7]. However, the accumulated spent nuclear fuel inventory is an impediment to the continual nuclear power generation since temporary storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel used in a nuclear power generation plant will become saturated starting from 2024 [8].…”