Nuclear fuel cycle cost estimation and sensitivity analysis of unit costs on the basis of an equilibrium model

Abstract

a b s t r a c t Q 3This paper examines the difference in the value of the nuclear fuel cycle cost calculated by the deterministic and probabilistic methods on the basis of an equilibrium model. Calculating using the deterministic method, the direct disposal cost and Pyro-SFR (sodiumcooled fast reactor) nuclear fuel cycle cost, including the reactor cost, were found to be 66.41 mills/kWh and 77.82 mills/kWh, respectively (1 mill ¼ one thousand of a dollar, i.e., 10 À3 $). This is because the cost of SFR is considerably expensive. Calculating again using the probabilistic method, however, the direct disposal cost and Pyro-SFR nuclear fuel cycle cost, excluding the reactor cost, were found be 7.47 mills/kWh and 6.40 mills/kWh, respectively, on the basis of the most likely value. This is because the nuclear fuel cycle cost is significantly affected by the standard deviation and the mean of the unit cost that includes uncertainty. Thus, it is judged that not only the deterministic method, but also the probabilistic method, would also be necessary to evaluate the nuclear fuel cycle cost. By analyzing the sensitivity of the unit cost in each phase of the nuclear fuel cycle, it was found that the uranium unit price is the most influential factor in determining nuclear fuel cycle costs.

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

“…It was also assumed that the metallic SNF discharged from SFRs will be recycled in the Pyro-SFR fuel cycle based upon past reference studies [12,13,31].…”

“…The main difference between the two models is that the latter can be used for long-term cost calculation as time elapses while the former is based on the cost calculation at a certain base year [12,14]. The equilibrium model is capable of providing cost information for prompt decision-making by evaluating the worthiness of a nuclear fuel cycle option quantitatively [12,14]. Therefore, the equilibrium model was chosen in this study to generate a series of cost information that may be helpful to understand the economic priorities of diverse nuclear fuel cycle options comprehensively and analytically.…”

“…To evaluate the economic feasibility of a nuclear fuel cycle through equilibrium model, Equations (i) to (xiv) shown in Table 12 were proposed to calculate the fuel cycle costs with an assumption of zero discount rate [12]. All the unit cost data are discounted to the base year of 2016 with an inflation rate of 2.08%.…”

“…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].…”

“…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.…”