Comparison and Screening of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options in View of Sustainable Performance and Waste Management

Abstract

Abstract:Is it true that a nuclear technology approach to generate electric energy offers a clean, safe, reliable and affordable, i.e., sustainable option? In principle yes, however a technology impact on the environment strongly depends on the actual implementation bearing residual risks due to technical failures, human factors, or natural catastrophes. A full response is thus difficult and can be given first when the wicked multi-disciplinary issues get well formulated and "resolved". These problems are lying at the interface between: the necessary R&D effort, the industrial deployment and the technology impact in view of the environmental sustainability including the management of produced hazardous waste. As such, this problem is clearly of multi-dimensional nature. This enormous complexity indicates that just a description of the problem might cause a dilemma. The paper proposes a novel holistic approach applying Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to assess the potential of nuclear energy systems with respect to a sustainable performance. It shows how to establish a multi-level criteria structure tree and examines the trading-off techniques for scoring and ranking of options. The presented framework allows multi-criteria and multi-group treatment. The methodology can be applied to support any pre-decisional process launched in a country to find the best nuclear and/or non-nuclear option according to national preferences and priorities. The approach addresses major aspects of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. As a case study, advanced nuclear fuel cycles are analyzed, which were previously investigated by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA/OECD) expert group WASTEMAN. Sustainability facets of waste management, resource utilization and economics are in focus.Keywords: advanced nuclear fuel cycles; waste management; resource utilisation; economics; performance comparison, multi-criteria decision analysis; sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, environmental footprint BackgroundInnovative electrical energy generating technologies should be sustainable, i.e., clean, safe, reliable and affordable and moreover able to preserve resources and minimise liabilities [1]. The nuclear technology option might compete in this sense with other large-scale energy producing technologies as, for instance those consuming coal or oil resources [2]. However, very much like other non-nuclear energy generation options, a nuclear option produces hazardous radioactive waste (radwaste)-called high-level waste (HLW) that contains long-living radionuclides. Therefore HLW should be isolated from the biosphere by a disposal site/system and an enclosure in special facilities, called HLW repositories [3]. This is the reason why nuclear waste management is of public concern in some

Elaboration of approach to nuclear energy systems assessment by criterion of sustainable development

“…3. The suggested dynamic approach to the assessment of index of NES sustainable development supplements the conventional methodologies of comparison of NES options on the basis of methods of discrete analysis of solutions (for example, Kviatkovskii et al 2017, Kuznetsov et al 2014, Schwenk-Ferrero and Andrianov 2017, Schwenk-Ferrero and Andrianov 2017a, Kuznetsov et al 2015. Indicator of sustainable development for Option A1 simulating NES with once-through nuclear fuel cycle grows approximately from the middle of the century due to the replacement of reactors of generations 2 and 3 with reactors of generation 3 + with improved safety characteristics, optimization of economic performance of use of nuclear fuel, construction of intermediate SNF storage facilities and implementation of other measures within the framework of evolution approach.…”

Multi-criteria evaluation and ranking of potential scenarios for the development of Russian two-component nuclear energy system with thermal and sodium-cooled fast reactors

“…Three major problems need to be addressed to analyze comparatively and rank scenarios for the deployment of a two-component NES based on multi-criteria decision analysis methods (Kuznetsov et al 2014, 2015, Schwenk-Ferrero and Andrianov 2017a, 2017b, Andrianov et al 2019. First, a model of the NES shall be built taking into account the expected rate of the electricity generation growth and describing the key components of the industrial infrastructure including nuclear reactors and fuel cycle facilities with given performance.…”

“…The scenarios were comparatively evaluated and ranked based on the multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) with the additive form of the multi-attribute value function and decreasing linear functions used as single-attribute value functions for all performance indicators (Kuznetsov et al 2014, 2015, Schwenk-Ferrero and Andrianov 2017a, 2017b). The "equal weights" was used for the analysis starting point assuming that all performance indicators are equally important.…”

Mission Impossible? Socio-Technical Integration of Nuclear Waste Geological Disposal Systems

“…That is, they cannot be reduced to one dimension supporting the search for an optimal solution without losing essential information. Even when one uses methods such as multi-criteria decision analysis (e.g., [12]), the choice of the relative weights given to criteria is ultimately the result of a subjective choice varying among the different stakeholder groups and even changing in time [55]. Moreover, the groups included in the decision-making process will be unequally qualified to assess the two main dimensions on which decision must be made.…”

“…The need for an evaluation of the overall system is generally recognized [5,6]. For instance, efforts have been made for building unified information systems of radioactive materials at the point of waste generation [7][8][9], integrating the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle in the U.S. [10,11], and conducting multi-criteria performance assessments of various nuclear fuel cycle options [12,13]. However, there has been no formalization of disposal systems from an integrated perspective, beyond the conventional risk-based systems approach of engineering assessments [14][15][16][17][18].…”