scholarly journals Economic Analysis of Different Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won Il Ko ◽  
Fanxing Gao
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Unit Cost ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Pressurized Water Reactor ◽  
Pressurized Water ◽  
Sodium Fast Reactor ◽  
Fair Comparison ◽  
The Republic

An economic analysis has been performed to compare four nuclear fuel cycle options: a once-through cycle (OT), DUPIC recycling, thermal recycling using MOX fuel in a pressurized water reactor (PWR-MOX), and sodium fast reactor recycling employing pyroprocessing (Pyro-SFR). This comparison was made to suggest an economic competitive fuel cycle for the Republic of Korea. The fuel cycle cost (FCC) has been calculated based on the equilibrium material flows integrated with the unit cost of the fuel cycle components. The levelized fuel cycle costs (LFCC) have been derived in terms of mills/kWh for a fair comparison among the FCCs, and the results are as follows: OT 7.35 mills/kWh, DUPIC 9.06 mills/kWh, PUREX-MOX 8.94 mills/kWh, and Pyro-SFR 7.70 mills/kWh. Due to unavoidable uncertainties, a cost range has been applied to each unit cost, and an uncertainty study has been performed accordingly. A sensitivity analysis has also been carried out to obtain the break-even uranium price (215$/kgU) for the Pyro-SFR against the OT, which demonstrates that the deployment of the Pyro-SFR may be economical in the foreseeable future. The influence of pyrotechniques on the LFCC has also been studied to determine at which level the potential advantages of Pyro-SFR can be realized.

Economic analysis of two nuclear fuel cycle options

2014 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 230-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaoran Zhou ◽  
Xuegang Liu ◽  
Zhongmao Gu ◽  
Yugang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Economic Analysis of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

1972 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry M. Girvin ◽  
Warren F. Witzig
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Preliminary sustainable and economic analysis of nuclear fuel cycle with subcritical system

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-213
Author(s):  
Minghuang Wang ◽  
Xuewei Fu ◽  
Wenliang Zhang ◽  
Chao Lian ◽  
Dehong Chen
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Subcritical System

scholarly journals Non-Proliferative, Thorium-Based, Core and Fuel Cycle for Pressurized Water Reactors

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilad Raitses ◽  
Michael Todosow ◽  
Alex Galperin
Keyword(s):  
Fuel Assembly ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Pressurized Water Reactors ◽  
Pressurized Water Reactor ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Fuel Management ◽  
Pressurized Water ◽  
Water Reactors ◽  
Proliferation Potential

Two of the major barriers to the expansion of worldwide adoption of nuclear power are related to proliferation potential of the nuclear fuel cycle and issues associated with the final disposal of spent fuel. The Radkowsky Thorium Fuel (RTF) concept proposed by Professor A. Radkowsky offers a partial solution to these problems. The main idea of the concept is the utilization of the seed-blanket unit (SBU) fuel assembly geometry which is a direct replacement for a “conventional” assembly in either a Russian pressurized water reactor (VVER-1000) or a Western pressurized water reactor (PWR). The seed-blanket fuel assembly consists of a fissile (U) zone, known as seed, and a fertile (Th) zone known as blanket. The separation of fissile and fertile allows separate fuel management schemes for the thorium part of the fuel (a subcritical “blanket”) and the “driving” part of the core (a supercritical “seed”). The design objective for the blanket is an efficient generation and in-situ fissioning of the U233 isotope, while the design objective for the seed is to supply neutrons to the blanket in a most economic way, i.e. with minimal investment of natural uranium. The introduction of thorium as a fertile component in the nuclear fuel cycle significantly reduces the quantity of plutonium production and modifies its isotopic composition, reducing the overall proliferation potential of the fuel cycle. Thorium based spent fuel also contains fewer higher actinides, hence reducing the long-term radioactivity of the spent fuel. The analyses show that the RTF core can satisfy the requirements of fuel cycle length, and the safety margins of conventional pressurized water reactors. The coefficients of reactivity are comparable to currently operating VVER’s/PWR’s. The major feature of the RTF cycle is related to the total amount of spent fuel discharged for each cycle from the reactor core. The fuel management scheme adopted for RTF core designs allows a significant decrease in the amount of discharged spent fuel, for a given energy production, compared with standard VVER/PWR. The total Pu production rate of RTF cycles is only 30% of standard reactor. In addition, the isotopic compositions of the RTF’s and standard reactor grade Pu are markedly different due to the very high burnup accumulated by the RTF spent fuel.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document