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

2015 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.K. Kim ◽  
W.I. Ko ◽  
S.R. Youn ◽  
R.X. Gao
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
S. Richards ◽  
B. Feng

The ability to perform sensitivity analysis has been enabled for the nuclear fuel cycle simulator DYMOND through its coupling with the design and analysis toolkit Dakota. To test and demonstrate these new capabilities, a transition scenario and multi-parameter study were devised. The transition scenario represents a partial transition from the US nuclear fleet to a closed fuel cycle with small modular LWRs and fast reactors fueled by reprocessed used nuclear fuel. Four uncertain parameters in this transition were studied – start date of reprocessing, total reprocessing capacity, the nuclear energy demand growth, and the rate at which the fast reactors are deployed – with respect to their impact on four response metrics. The responses – total natural uranium consumed, maximum annual enrichment capacity required, total disposed mass, and total cost of the nuclear fuel cycle – were chosen based on measures known to be of interest in transition scenarios [2] and to be significantly impacted by the varying parameters. Analysis of this study was performed both from the direct sampling and through surrogate models developed in Dakota to calculate the global sensitivity measures Sobol’ indices. This example application of this new capability showed that the most consequential parameter to most metrics was the share of new build capacity that is fast reactors. However, for the cost metric, the scaling factor of the energy demand growth was significant and had synergistic behavior with the fast reactor new build share.


Author(s):  
David Shropshire ◽  
Jess Chandler

To help meet the nation’s energy needs, recycling of partially used nuclear fuel is required to close the nuclear fuel cycle, but implementing this step will require considerable investment. This report evaluates financing scenarios for integrating recycling facilities into the nuclear fuel cycle. A range of options from fully government owned to fully private owned were evaluated using DPL (Decision Programming Language 6.0), which can systematically optimize outcomes based on user-defined criteria (e.g., lowest life-cycle cost, lowest unit cost). This evaluation concludes that the lowest unit costs and lifetime costs are found for a fully government-owned financing strategy, due to government forgiveness of debt as sunk costs. However, this does not mean that the facilities should necessarily be constructed and operated by the government. The costs for hybrid combinations of public and private (commercial) financed options can compete under some circumstances with the costs of the government option. This analysis shows that commercial operations have potential to be economical, but there is presently no incentive for private industry involvement. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) currently establishes government ownership of partially used commercial nuclear fuel. In addition, the recently announced Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) suggests fuels from several countries will be recycled in the United States as part of an international governmental agreement; this also assumes government ownership. Overwhelmingly, uncertainty in annual facility capacity led to the greatest variations in unit costs necessary for recovery of operating and capital expenditures; the ability to determine annual capacity will be a driving factor in setting unit costs. For private ventures, the costs of capital, especially equity interest rates, dominate the balance sheet; and the annual operating costs, forgiveness of debt, and overnight costs dominate the costs computed for the government case. The uncertainty in operations, leading to lower than optimal processing rates (or annual plant throughput), is the most detrimental issue to achieving low unit costs. Conversely, lowering debt interest rates and the required return on investments can reduce costs for private industry.


2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-92
Author(s):  
U.G. Kutsan ◽  
◽  
O.V. Godun ◽  
V.N. Kyrianchuk ◽  
◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 644-650 ◽  
pp. 5174-5178
Author(s):  
Yue Hong ◽  
Lan Lan Jiang ◽  
Dong Xiao Niu ◽  
Fu Yan Liu ◽  
Xiao Yu Wang ◽  
...  

This paper analyzed two different types of nuclear fuel cycle which refferred to one-through fuel cycle and close fuel cycle (uranium-plutonium fuel cycle). Based on specific economic elements related to each cycle process, this paper built a model to evaluate PWR nuclear fuel cycle’s economy. Then, for given data of PWR, empirical analysis and sensitivity analysis were carried out. The result showed the superiority of the close fuel cycle compared to the one-through cycle.


2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Bogdanov ◽  
R. Kuznetsov ◽  
V. Epimahov ◽  
A. Titov ◽  
E. Prudnikov

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolay G. Chernorukov ◽  
Oxana V. Nipruk ◽  
Kseniya A. Klinshova ◽  
Olga N. Tumaeva ◽  
Dmitry V. Sokolov

A series of new uranium compounds [MII(H2O)3][(UO2)3O3(OH)2]·2H2O (MII – Mn, Co, Ni, Zn) were synthesized for binding radionuclides in the environment and nuclear fuel cycle.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document