Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2016.07.009

An Integrated Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach for Evaluating Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems for Long-term Sustainability on the Basis of an Equilibrium Model: Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation, and Multiattribute Utility Theory Combined with Analytic Hierarchy Process  

Yoon, Saerom (Department of Quantum Energy Chemical Engineering, Korea University of Science and Technology (KUST))
Choi, Sungyeol (Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology)
Ko, Wonil (Nonproliferation System Development Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI))
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.49, no.1, 2017 , pp. 148-164 More about this Journal
Abstract
The focus on the issues surrounding spent nuclear fuel and lifetime extension of old nuclear power plants continues to grow nowadays. A transparent decision-making process to identify the best suitable nuclear fuel cycle (NFC) is considered to be the key task in the current situation. Through this study, an attempt is made to develop an equilibrium model for the NFC to calculate the material flows based on 1 TWh of electricity production, and to perform integrated multicriteria decision-making method analyses via the analytic hierarchy process technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution, preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation, and multiattribute utility theory methods. This comparative study is aimed at screening and ranking the three selected NFC options against five aspects: sustainability, environmental friendliness, economics, proliferation resistance, and technical feasibility. The selected fuel cycle options include pressurized water reactor (PWR) once-through cycle, PWR mixed oxide cycle, or pyroprocessing sodium-cooled fast reactor cycle. A sensitivity analysis was performed to prove the robustness of the results and explore the influence of criteria on the obtained ranking. As a result of the comparative analysis, the pyroprocessing sodium-cooled fast reactor cycle is determined to be the most competitive option among the NFC scenarios.
Keywords
Equilibrium Model; Multicriteria Decision Making; Nuclear Fuel Cycle; Pressurized Water Reactor Pyroprocessing Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor; Sustainability;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 M.M. Koksalan, J. Wallenius, S. Zionts, Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century, World Scientific, Singapore, 2011.
2 T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, second ed., RWS Publications, Pittsburghm, PA, USA, 1996.
3 E.H. Forman, S.I. Gass, The analytic hierarchy process-an exposition, Oper. Res. 49 (2001) 469-486.   DOI
4 J. Vincke, P. Brans, A preference ranking organization method. The PROMETHEE method for MCDM, Manag. Sci. 31 (1985) 641-656.
5 B. Mareschal, J.P. Brans, Geometrical representations for MCDA: the GAIA module, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 34 (1988) 69-77.   DOI
6 M. Behzadian, R.B. Kazemzadeh, A. Albadvi, M. Aghdasi, PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 200 (2010) 198-215.   DOI
7 C. Hwang, K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.
8 M.W. Merkhofer, R.L. Keeney, A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste, Risk Anal. 7 (1987) 173-194.   DOI
9 R.L. Keeney, H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993.
10 G. Anandalingam, M. Westfall, Selection of hazardous waste disposal alternative using multi-attribute utility theory and fuzzy set analysis, J. Environ. Syst. 18 (1988) 69-85.   DOI
11 R.L. Keeney, K. Nair, Nuclear siting using decision analysis, Energy Policy 5 (1977) 223-231.   DOI
12 R.P. Hamalainen, M.R. Lindstedt, K. Sinkko, Multiattribute risk analysis in nuclear emergency management, Risk Anal. 20 (2000) 455-468.   DOI
13 W.T. Hwang, Application of multi-attribute utility analysis for the decision support of countermeasures in early phase of a nuclear emergency, J. Korean Assoc. Radiat. Prot. 29 (2004) 65-71.
14 J.C. Butler, A.N. Chebeskov, J.S. Dyer, T.A. Edmunds, J. Jia, V.I. Oussanov, The United States and Russia evaluate plutonium disposition options with multiattribute utility theory, Interfaces 35 (2005) 88-101.   DOI
15 F. Gao, W.I. Ko, Modeling and system analysis of fuel cycles for nuclear power sustainability (III): an integrated evaluation, Prog. Nucl. Energy 74 (2004) 79-90.
16 J.S. Dyer, T. Edmunds, J. Butler, J. Jia, A multiattribute utility analysis of alternatives for the disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium, Oper. Res. 46 (1998) 749-762.   DOI
17 S.K. Kim, O. Song, A MAUT approach for selecting a dismantling scenario for the thermal column in KRR-1, Ann. Nucl. Energy 36 (2009) 145-150.   DOI
18 S.K. Kim, G.B. Kang, W.I. Ko, S.R. Youn, R.X. Gao, A statistical approach for deriving key NFC evaluation criteria, J. Korean Nucl. Soc. 46 (2013) 83-90.
19 V. Kuznetsov, G. Fesenko, A. Andrianov, I. Kuptsov, INPRO activities on development of advanced tools to support judgement aggregation for comparative evaluation of nuclear energy systems, Sci. Technol. Nucl. Install. 2015 (2015) 3-11.
20 OECD/NEA, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Transition Scenario Studies, Nuclear Science NEA, Paris, France, 2009, pp. 25-110.
21 M. Zeleny, Linear Multiobjective Programming, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1974, pp. 60-90.
22 J.M. Lafleur, Probabilistic AHP and TOPSIS for multi-attribute decision-making under uncertainty, IEEEAC 2 (2011) 1-18.
23 L. Anojkumar, M. Ilangkumaran, V. Sasirekha, Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry, Expert Syst. Appl. 41 (2014) 2964-2980.   DOI
24 V. Tomic, Z. Marinkovic, D. Jonosevic, PROMETHEE method implementation with multiple criteria decisions, Mech. Eng. 9 (2011) 193-202.
25 J. Carlson, Introduction to the concept of proliferation resistance, ICNND Research Paper No. 8 revised, Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office, Barton, 2009, pp. 1-10.
26 S.C. Deshmukh, Preference organization method of enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE), Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent. 2 (2013) 28-34.
27 D.L. Thurston, Multi-attribute utility analysis of conflicting preferences, in: K.E. Lewia (Ed.), Decision Making in Engineering Design, ASME Press, New York, USA, 2006, pp. 44-85.
28 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Proliferation Resistance Fundamentals for Future Nuclear Energy Systems, IAEA STR-332, IAEA Department of Safeguards, Vienna, Austria, 2002, pp. 22-30.
29 V. Mark, T.H. Patrick, An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods, Oper. Res. 10 (2013) 56-66.
30 National Academy of Sciences, Management and Disposition Excess Weapons Plutonium, Reactor-Related Options, Committee on International Security and Arms Control, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C, 1955, p. 15.
31 S.H. Kim, B.H. Jeong, J.K. Kim, Decision Making Analysis and Application, Young-ji Munwhasa, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2005, pp. 39-105.
32 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Radioactive Waste Management, OECD/NEA, Paris, France, 2006, pp. 120-250.
33 D.E. Shropshire, K.A. Williams, J.D. Smith, Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis, rev. 2, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, 2009, pp. 6-25.
34 Hyundai Engineering Co. Ltd, Development of Cost Evaluation System for the Liability of NPPs, Hyundai Engineering Co. Ltd: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2009, pp. 360-364.
35 Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Cost Estimation of Interim Storage for Spent Fuels, Ministry of Knowledge Economy of the Republic of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 2012, pp. 9-40.
36 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Status of Innovative Fast Reactor Design and Concepts, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2012, pp. 5-10.
37 Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Preliminary Conceptual Design and Cost Estimation for Korea Advanced Pyroprocess Facility Plus (KAPF+), KAERI, Daejeon, Korea, 2011, pp. 10-17.
38 UXC [Internet], Uranium Spot Market Prices, 2015 [accessed 2015 Oct 9]. Available from: http://www.uxc.com/review/UxCPrices.aspx.
39 Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Cost Estimation of Final Disposal for Spent Fuels, Ministry of Knowledge Economy of the Republic of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 2012, pp. 22-88.