Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis

Shropshire, David; Williams, K.A.; Boore, W B; Smith, J D; Dixon, B W; Dunzik-Gougar, M; Adams, R D; Gombert, D; Schneider, E

doi:10.2172/983353

Cited by 21 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The triangular distribution is a nonparametric distribution that uses only three input values (ie, lower bound, mode value, and upper bound), which makes it ideal for modeling expert opinions on the cost estimation combined with insufficient statistical information. [48][49][50]…”

Section: Probabilistic Simulation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversely, in the INL (2009) and (2017) reports, a slightly descending trend in the overnight capital costs can be observed over time. 49,50 Here, we have attempted to maintain neutrality to select more moderate data in recognition instead of the representative sample of data under specific circumstances. To access more real-time cost data, we adopted the capital cost estimates for both the pressurized water reactor (PWR) and pressurized heavy-water reactor (PHWR) from the INL (2017): 4000 and 4200 USD/kWe as the model value, 2500 and 2400 USD/kWe as the upper boundary data, and 5800 and 6100 USD/kWe as the lower boundary data, respectively based on 2017 USD.…”

Section: Reactor Capital Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The D&D cost is typically calculated by an escrow or sinking fund annually spread throughout the reactor lifetime. 46,49 The related detailed calculation was exampled in EMWG (2007). 45 Here, considering the tiny contribution of D&D cost in the GC, we followed the INL (2009) and (2017)'s simplistic method that covers D&D fund in the corresponding fixed O&M costs for each type of reactors, as listed in Table 2.…”

Section: Oandm and Dandd Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The economic competitiveness of promising nuclear energy system: A closer look at the input uncertainties in LCOE analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary In this study, we aimed to provide important information about the potential economic benefits and risks of nuclear electricity generation associated with existing and prevailing nuclear technologies and to examine the economic effects of nuclear fuel cycle strategies in Korea. An economic analysis model that evaluates the overall life‐cycle costs of nuclear energy systems coupled with multiple fuel cycle options was specially developed by using the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) as the fundamental methodology. This model is capable of identifying a range of techno‐economic uncertainties underlying each individual nuclear energy system taking into account the state of the art in fuel cycle technologies. It can also quantify and incorporate the resulting impacts into a system‐wide LCOE distribution for each fuel cycle option based on Monte Carlo probabilistic simulation. We analyzed and discussed examples of the economic performance of 13 promising candidates for nuclear energy systems integrated with extensive fuel cycle technologies (including one direct disposal and 12 specific reprocessing and recycling fuel cycle options). We also conducted a sensitivity analysis to investigate the major sensitivity factors of the system component cost in each fuel cycle option and their impacts on individual economic performances. Furthermore, a closer look at the techno‐economic uncertainties of advanced fuel cycle technologies in a break‐even analysis offers evidence of the potential economic feasibility and cost‐reduction opportunities in the reprocessing and recycling options relative to the direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

show abstract

Section: Probabilistic Simulation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reactor Capital Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Oandm and Dandd Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The economic competitiveness of promising nuclear energy system: A closer look at the input uncertainties in LCOE analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a representative fixed cost for a general FD concept is difficult to obtain due to the lack of information, these values might serve as a first estimation. To do this analysis, the information for some countries presented in [11,19,21,22] and in scenarios with partial reprocessing [23,24]) has been followed. This information, about the SF mass generated by cycle and its estimated FD cost, is reinforced by the companies engaged in the development and construction of these facilities.…”

Section: Final Disposal Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross check of the new economic and mass balance features of the fuel cycle scenario code TR_EVOL

Merino-Rodríguez

García-Martínez

López

2016

EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Versatile computational tools with up to date capabilities are needed to assess current nuclear fuel cycles or the transition from the current status of the fuel cycle to the more advanced and sustainable ones. This work is intended to cross check the new capabilities of the fuel cycle scenario code TR_EVOL. This process has been divided in two stages. The first stage is dedicated to check the improvements in the nuclear fuel mass balance estimation using the available data for the Spanish nuclear fuel cycle. The second stage has been focused in verifying the validity of the TR_EVOL economic module, comparing results to data published by the ARCAS EU project. A specific analysis was required to evaluate the back-end cost. Data published by the waste management responsible institutions was used for the validation of the methodology. Results were highly satisfactory for both stages. In particular, the economic assessment provides a difference smaller than 3% regarding results published by the ARCAS project (NRG estimations). Furthermore, concerning the back-end cost, results are highly acceptable (7% difference for a final disposal in a once-through scenario and around 11% for a final disposal in a reprocessing strategy) given the significant uncertainties involved in design concepts and related unit costs.

show abstract

“…The costs for different stages of fuel cycle are taken from different sources [10][11][12] with expert evaluation. Table 2 shows the basic UOX FA cost calculation.…”

Section: The Economical Aspects Of Pu Multiple Recyclingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical and economical aspects of Pu multiple recycling on the basis of REMIX reprocessing technology in thermal reactors

Teplov¹,

Alekseev²,

Bobrov³

et al. 2016

EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The basic strategy of Russian nuclear energy is propagation of a closed fuel cycle on the basis of fast breeder and thermal reactors, as well as the solution of the spent nuclear fuel accumulation and resource problems. The three variants of multiple Pu and U recycling in Russian pressurized water reactor concept reactors on the basis of REgenerated MIXture of U, Pu oxides (REMIX) reprocessing technology are considered in this work. The REMIX fuel is fabricated from an unseparated mixture of uranium and plutonium obtained during spent fuel reprocessing with further makeup by enriched natural U or reactor grade Pu. This makes it possible to recycle several times the total amount of Pu obtained from the spent fuel. The main difference in Pu recycling is the concept of 100% or partial fuel loading of the core. The third variant is heterogeneous composition of enriched uranium and uranium-plutonium mixed oxide fuel pins in one fuel assembly. It should be noted that all fuel assemblies with Pu require the involvement of expensive technologies during manufacturing. These three variants of the full core loadings can be balanced on zero Pu accumulation in the cycle. The various physical and economical aspects of Pu and U multiple recycling in selected variants are observed in the given work.

show abstract

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis

Cited by 21 publications

References 13 publications

The economic competitiveness of promising nuclear energy system: A closer look at the input uncertainties in LCOE analysis

The economic competitiveness of promising nuclear energy system: A closer look at the input uncertainties in LCOE analysis

Cross check of the new economic and mass balance features of the fuel cycle scenario code TR_EVOL

Physical and economical aspects of Pu multiple recycling on the basis of REMIX reprocessing technology in thermal reactors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About