Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Loading pattern design and economic evaluation for 24-month cycle operation of OPR-1000 in Korea

  • Jeongmin Lee (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Pusan National University) ;
  • Hyun Chul Lee (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2022.06.27
  • Accepted : 2022.10.27
  • Published : 2023.03.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Due to the tightened regulatory environment since the Fukushima accident, the capacity factor of Korean nuclear power plants has been declining since 2011. To overcome this circumstance, a shift from 18-month to 24-month cycle operation is being considered in Korea. Therefore, in this study, loading patterns(LPs) for 24-month cycle operation of the Korean standard nuclear power plant(OPR-1000) are suggested and economic evaluations are performed. A single-zone LP with 89 fresh fuels was evaluated to be optimal for 24-month operation of OPR-1000 in terms of economic gain. The 24-month operation of OPR-1000 with this LP gives a profit of 7.073 million dollars per year compared to 18-month operation.

Keywords

References

  1. Korea Hydro&Nuclear Power open nuclear power plant operation information. https://npp.khnp.co.kr/index.khnp?menuCd=DOM_000000102002003000.
  2. Yoshimasa Sakuya, et al., Feasibility study of 24-month cycle operation for boiling water reactor, in: Proceedings of GENES4/ANP2003, Kyoto JAPAN, Sep. 15-19, 2003, p. 1104.
  3. Kresimir Trontl, Dubravko Pevec, Tomislav Belavic, 24-month operating cycle containing gadolinium integral burnable absorbers for NPP Krsko, J. Energy 62 (2013) 180-187. https://doi.org/10.37798/2013621-4228
  4. Aiman Dandi, MinJae Lee, Myung Hyun Kim, Feasibility of combinational burnable poison pins for 24-month cycle PWR reload core, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (Issue 2) (2020) 238-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.07.026
  5. Sung Ju Cho, Chang Joo Hah, Determination of optimum batch size and fuel enrichment for OPR1000 NPP based on nucler fuel cycle cost analysis, J. Energy Eng. 23 (2014) 256-262. https://doi.org/10.5855/ENERGY.2014.23.4.256
  6. S.K. You, et al., Evaluation of the Fuel Cycle Cost According to WH 16x16 Advnaced Fuel Types", Transaction of Korean Nuclear Autumn Meeting, Yongin, Korea, 2001.
  7. Seong Man Bae, Yu Sun Choi, Hwan Soo Lee, Jun Hyung Kim, An Economic Assessment for OPR1000 Longer Cycle Operation", Korean Society for Energy, 2010, pp. 121-126.
  8. Jiwon Choe, Sooyoung Choi, Peng Zhang, Jinsu Park, Wonkyeong Kim, Ho Cheol Shin, Hwan Soo Lee, Ji-Eun Jung, Deokjung Lee, Verification and validation of STREAM/RAST-K for PWR analysis, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 51 (2) (2019) 356-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.10.004
  9. The Nuclear Design Report for Yonggwang Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 Cycle 1, KAERI/TR-542/95, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 1995.
  10. The Nuclear Design Report for Yonggwang Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 Cycle 2, KAERI/TR-605/96, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 1996.
  11. Reload startup physics tests for pressurized water reactors, ANSI/ANS 19.6.1 (2005). ANS.
  12. The Economics of Nuclear Fuel Cycle, OECD/NEA, 1994.
  13. L.L.C. UxC, Fuel quentity& cost calculator. https://www.uxc.com/p/tools/FuelCalculator.aspx.
  14. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy Notice No. 2022-11, Regulations on the Calculation of Radioactive Waste Management Cost and Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Charge, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy of Korea, 2022.
  15. Electric Power Statistics Information System(EPSIS). http://epsis.kpx.or.kr/epsisnew/selectEkmaUpsBftChart.do?menuId=040701.