• 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.

• 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.

• Journal of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology(JNFCWT)
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.243-251
• /
• 2015

Nuclear power is currently the second largest power supply method in Korea and the number of nuclear power plants are planned to be increased as well. However, clear management policy for spent fuels generated from nuclear power plants has not yet been established. The back-end fuel cycle, associated with nuclear material flow after nuclear reactors is a collection of technologies designed for the spent fuel management and the spent fuel management policy is closely related with the selection of a nuclear fuel cycle. Cost is an important consideration in selection of a nuclear fuel cycle and should be determined by adding external cost to private cost. Unlike the private cost, which is a direct cost, studies on the external cost are focused on nuclear reactors and not at the nuclear fuel cycle. In this research, external cost indicators applicable to nuclear fuel cycle were derived and quantified. OT (once through), DUPIC (Direct Use of PWR SF in CANDU), PWR-MOX (PWR PUREX reprocessing), and Pyro-SFR (SFR recycling with pyroprocessing) were selected as nuclear fuel cycles which could be considered for estimating external cost in Korea. Energy supply security cost, accident risk cost, and acceptance cost were defined as external cost according to precedent and estimated after analyzing approaches which have been adopted for estimating external costs on nuclear power generation.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.141-148
• /
• 2011

This paper presents the quantitative analysis results of research on the burnup effect on the nuclear fuel cycle cost of BeO-$UO_2$ fuel. As a result of this analysis, if the burnup is 60 MWD/kg, which is the limit under South Korean regulations, the nuclear fuel cycle cost is 4.47 mills/kWh at 4.8wt% of Be content for the BeO-$UO_2$ fuel. It is, however, reduced to 3.70 mills/kWh at 5.4wt% of Be content if the burnup is 75MWD/kg. Therefore, it seems very advantageous, in terms of the economic aspect, to develop BeO-$UO_2$ fuel, which does not have any technical problem with its safety and is a high burnup & long life cycle nuclear fuel.

• Journal of Energy Engineering
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.256-262
• /
• 2014

Cycle length of domestic nuclear power plants is determined by the demand-supply plan of utility company. The target cycle length is achieved by adjusting the number of feed fuel assembly and fuel enrichment. Traditionally, utility company first select the number of feed fuel assembly and then find out the fuel enrichment to achieve the special cycle length. But it is difficult to find out if this method is most economical than any other combinations of the enrichment and batch size satisfying the same cycle length. In this paper, core depletion calculation is performed to find out the optimum combination of the enrichment and batch size for given target cycle length in terms of fuel cycle cost using commercial core design code; CASMO/MASTER code. To minimize the uncertainty resulting from transition core analysis, levelized fuel cycle cost analysis was applied to the equilibrium cycle core in order to determine the optimum combination. The sensitivity study of discount rate was also carried out to analyze the levelized fuel cycle cost applicable to countries with different discount rates. From the levelized fuel cycle cost analysis results, the combination with smaller batch size and higher fuel enrichment becomes more economical as the discount rate becomes lower. On the other hand, the combination with higher batch size and lower fuel enrichment becomes more economical as the discount rate becomes higher.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.91-100
• /
• 2005

Kyung-hee Thorium Fuel (KTF), a heterogeneous thorium-based seed and blanket design concept for pressurized light water reactors, is being studied as an alternative to enhance proliferation resistance and fuel cycle economics of PWRs. The proliferation resistance characteristics of the KTF assembly design were evaluated through parametric studies using neutronic performance indices such as Bare Critical Mass (BCM), Spontaneous Neutron Source rate (SNS), Thermal Generation rate (TG), and Radio-Toxicity. Also, Fissile Economic Index (FEI), a new index for gauging fuel cycle economy, was suggested and applied to optimize the KTF design. A core loaded with optimized KTF assemblies with a seed-to-blanket ratio of 1: 1 was tested at the Korea Next Generation Reactor (KNGR), ARP-1400. Core design characteristics for cycle length, power distribution, and power peaking were evaluated by HELIOS and MASTER code systems for nine reload cycles. The core calculation results show that the KTF assembly design has nearly the same neutronic performance as those of a conventional $UO_2$ fuel assembly. However, the power peaking factor is relatively higher than that of conventional PWRs as the maximum Fq is 2.69 at the M$9^{th}$ equilibrium cycle while the design limit is 2.58. In order to assess the economic potential of a heterogeneous thorium fuel core, the front-end fuel cycle costs as well as the spent fuel disposal costs were compared with those of a reference PWR fueled with $UO_2$. In the case of comprising back-end fuel cycle cost, the fuel cycle cost of APR-1400 with a KTF assembly is 4.99 mills/KWe-yr, which is lower than that (5.23 mills/KWe-yr) of a conventional PWR. Proliferation resistance potential, BCM, SNS, and TG of a heterogeneous thorium-fueled core are much higher than those of the $UO_2$ core. The once-through fuel cycle application of heterogeneous thorium fuel assemblies demonstrated good competitiveness relative to $UO_2$ in terms of economics.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.295-310
• /
• 1975

A system of model price data for the fuel cost estimation of the Go-ri plant is developed. With the application of MITCOST-II computer code the levelized unit fuel costs over the entire lifetime of the plant are evaluated. It is found that the overall levelized unit fuel cost is 7.332 mills/Kwhe and that the uranium ore and enrichment service represent more than 85% of the unit cost, assuming a simple once-through fuel cycle process with no reprocessing of the spent fuel. The effects of the cost fluctuations in these fuel cycle elements and the capacity factor changes are also evaluated. The results indicate that the fuel costs are most sensitive to the variation of uranium ore price. Efforts must, therefore, be employed for the arrangement of cheap and timely supply of uranium ore in order to achieve the economic generation of nuclear power.

• Journal of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology(JNFCWT)
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.271-282
• /
• 2015

External cost is cost imposed on a third party when producing or consuming a good or service. Since the 1990s, the external costs of nuclear powered electricity production have been studied. Costs are a very important factor in policy decision and the external cost is considered for cost comparison on electricity production. As for nuclear fuel cycle, a chosen technology will determine the external cost. However, there has been little research on this issue. For this study, methods for external cost on nuclear power production have been surveyed and analyzed to develop an approach for evaluating external cost on nuclear fuel cycles. Before the Fukushima accident, external cost research had focused on damage costs during normal operation of a fuel cycle. However, accident cost becomes a major concern after the accident. Various considerations for external cost including accident cost have been used to different studies, and different methods have been applied corresponding to the considerations. In this study, the results of the evaluation were compared and analyzed to identify methodological applicability to the external cost estimation with nuclear fuel cycles.

• 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.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.219-229
• /
• 1976

A statistical approach is employed to investigate the relative advantages of several alternative fuel cycles suitable for a hypothetical 1125 MWe plant in Korea. All the fuel cost parameters are treated as statistical variables, each being associated with an appropriate probability distribution function. Through a random sampling procedure, the probability histograms on both capital requirements and break-even costs of various fuel cycle components are obtained. The histograms are then utilized to quantify the cost-benefit of the fuel cycle with reprocessing or the plutonium recycle over the throwaway cycle.