• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.45 no.5
• /
• pp.665-674
• /
• 2013

This paper presents the development and validation methods of the FUTURE (FUel cycle analysis Tool for nUcleaR Energy) code, which was developed for a dynamic material flow evaluation and economic analysis of the nuclear fuel cycle. This code enables an evaluation of a nuclear material flow and its economy for diverse nuclear fuel cycles based on a predictable scenario. The most notable virtue of this FUTURE code, which was developed using C# and MICROSOFT SQL DBMS, is that a program user can design a nuclear fuel cycle process easily using a standard process on the canvas screen through a drag-and-drop method. From the user's point of view, this code is very easy to use thanks to its high flexibility. In addition, the new code also enables the maintenance of data integrity by constructing a database environment of the results of the nuclear fuel cycle analyses.

• Proceedings of the Korean Radioactive Waste Society Conference
• /
• 2018.05a
• /
• pp.94-95
• /
• 2018

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.85-94
• /
• 2007

The Korean nuclear fuel cycle was modeled by the dynamic analysis method, which was applied to the once-through and alternative fuel cycles. First, the once-through fuel cycle was analyzed based on the Korean nuclear power plant construction plan up to 2015 and a postulated nuclear demand growth rate of zero after 2015. Second, alternative fuel cycles including the direct use of spent pressurized water reactor fuel in Canada deuterium uranium reactors (DUPIC), a sodium-cooled fast reactor and an accelerator driven system were assessed and the results were compared with those of the once-through fuel cycle. The once-through fuel cycle calculation showed that the nuclear power demand would be 25 GWe and the amount of the spent fuel will be ${\sim}65000$ tons by 2100. The alternative fuel cycle analyses showed that the spent fuel inventory could be reduced by more than 30% and 90% through the DUPIC and fast reactor fuel cycles, respectively, when compared with the once-through fuel cycle. The results of this study indicate that both spent fuel and uranium resources can be effectively managed if alternative reactor systems are timely implemented along with the existing reactors.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.169-174
• /
• 2016

This article describes a comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of the middle part of nuclear fuel cycles. Evaluation of fuel cycles is basically divided into two parts. The first comprises nuclear calculation, i.e., creation of the strategy for nuclear fuel reloading and core design calculations. The second part is the business-economic evaluation of the selected reloading strategy, which can be done either by financial analysis or economic analysis. The financial analysis incorporates the perspectives of a company while the economic analysis can be used primarily by national economists or politicians. This methodology was applied to a case study that is focused on impacts of switching from a 12-month to an 18-month fuel cycle strategy for Water-Water Energetic Reactor (VVER)-1000 reactors.

• Proceedings of the Korean Radioactive Waste Society Conference
• /
• 2004.06a
• /
• pp.386-395
• /
• 2004

The Korean fuel cycle scenario has been modeled by using the dynamic analysis method. For once-through fuel cycle model, the nuclear power plant construction plan was considered, and the nuclear demand growth rate from the year 2016 was assumed to be 1%. After setup the once-thorough fuel cycle model, the DUPIC and fast reactor scenarios were modeled to investigate the environmental effect of each fuel cycle. Through the calculation of the amount of spent fuel, and the amounts of plutonium and minor actinides were estimated and compared to those of the once-through fuel cycle. The results of the once-through fuel cycle shows that the demand grows to 64 GWe and the total amount of the spent fuel would be 100 kt in the year 2100, while the total spent fuel can be reduced by 50% when the DUPIC scenario is implemented

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.49 no.5
• /
• pp.1063-1070
• /
• 2017

This paper presents a method for forecasting future uranium prices that is used as input data to calculate the uranium cost, which is a rational key cost driver of the nuclear fuel cycle cost. In other words, the statistical autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model and existing engineering cost estimation method, the so-called escalation rate model, were subjected to a comparative analysis. When the uranium price was forecasted in 2015, the margin of error of the ARIMA model forecasting was calculated and found to be 5.4%, whereas the escalation rate model was found to have a margin of error of 7.32%. Thus, it was verified that the ARIMA model is more suitable than the escalation rate model at decreasing uncertainty in nuclear fuel cycle cost calculation.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.306-314
• /
• 2015

This 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 (sodium-cooled 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 = one thousand of a dollar, i.e., $10^{-3}$ $). 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Nuclear Society Conference
• /
• 2005.05a
• /
• pp.293-294
• /
• 2005

The safety analyses and evaluation works on the process and facility for ACP demonstration have been performed. The several safety factors, such as the risk, environmental, radiation, structural, criticality, were analyzed. The analysis results confirmed the reliability of the safety on the ACP process and facility during normal and accident conditions.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.361-368
• /
• 2003

The economic and environmental friendliness analysis of the nuclear fuel cycle options that can be expected in Korea were performed. Options considered are direct disposal, reprocessing and DUPIC (Direct Use of Spent PWR Fuel In CANDU Reactors). By considering the result of calculation of the annual uranium requirement and nuclear spent fuel generation by analysis of nuclear fuel material flows in the nuclear fuel cycle options, we decided the time of back-end nuclear fuel cycle processes and the volume. Then we can analyze the economic and environmental friendliness by applying the unit cost and unit value of each process, respectively.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.36 no.2
• /
• pp.175-183
• /
• 2004

For the analysis of a dry process fuel cycle, new modules were implemented into the fuel cycle analysis code DYMOND, which was developed by the Argonne National Laboratory. The modifications were made to the energy demand prediction model, a Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactor, direct use of spent pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel in CANDU reactors (DUPIC) fuel cycle model, the fuel cycle calculation module, and the input/output modules. The performance of the modified DYMOND code was assessed for the postulated once-through fuel cycle models including both the PWR and CANDU reactor. This paper presents modifications of the DYMOND code and the results of sample calculations for the PWR once-though and DUPIC fuel cycles.