Comparative Evaluation of Direct Disposal and Pyro-SFR Nuclear Fuel Cycle Alternatives Using Multi Criteria Decision Making in Korea

Abstract

The Korean government is currently evaluating two alternatives, direct disposal and pyroprocessing, for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. This paper presents the ranking results of comparing and evaluating direct disposal and pyro-SFR fuel cycle alternatives using multi-criteria decision-making methods such as AHP, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE. In considering the various evaluation criteria involved in these two alternatives, we aimed to determine the optimal choice in terms of the economic and social conditions of Korea. The evaluation criteria considered were safety, resource availability, environmental impact, economics, nuclear proliferation resistance, and public acceptance. The results show that the pyro-SFR fuel cycle alternative is more advantageous than direct disposal in the AHP and TOPSIS methods, whereas direct disposal is more advantageous in the PROMETHEE method because the ranking is reversed. TOPSIS assigns the ideal value and the most negative value among the input values to each criterion as a parameter reflecting the concept of distance between the best alternative and the worst alternative. In contrast, the PROMETHEE method first selects the preference function including the preference threshold, and calculates the preferred outflow and the preferred inflow for the detailed evaluation indicators. Therefore, differences exist in the methodologies of multi-criteria decision making. Nonetheless, the analysis results of the back-end fuel cycle option can greatly contribute to establishing a nuclear policy for the back-end nuclear fuel cycle, and these efforts will enable sustainable nuclear power generation.

Storage and Disposal Options for Nuclear Waste

“…It is impossible to intuitively choose the preferred alternative. Kim et al [3,4], based on evaluation criteria, such as safety, technology, environmental impact, economic feasibility, and nuclear proliferation resistance, made detailed studies using various benefit-cost ratio (BCR) analyses. The results of these analyses are ambiguous.…”