Economic Analysis on Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in CANDU Reactors—II: DUPIC Fuel-Handling Cost

Choi, Hangbok; Ko, Won Il; Yang, Mino; Namgung, Ihn; Na, Bok-Gyun

doi:10.13182/nt01-a3191

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is used to remove some fission products from PWR spent fuels through mechanical, voloxidation, and oxidation and reduction of oxide (OREOX) fuel processes . Here, we adopted data from the KAERI's DUPIC studies, in which the DUPIC reprocessing costs were assumed to be included in fuel fabrication costs, with a mode cost as being 700 USD/kgHM and a cost distribution ranging from 500 to 900 USD/kgHM.…”

Section: Uncertain Variables and Input Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2019

Self Cite

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: Uncertain Variables and Input Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Development of fuel cladding material, which wears well for this burnup, is required but it may take too much time for research and developments. However, even though the presently attainable burnup of cladding is much less than 50%, employing simple reprocessing such as DUPIC fuel-handling technique (Choi et al, 2001) can realize the CANDLE burnup. DUPIC is a dry process without separating actinides and fission products and the cladding is replaced by new one.…”

Section: Uranium Resource Utilization By Candle Burnupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“CANDLE” burnup regime after LWR regime

Sekimoto

Nagata

2008

Progress in Nuclear Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Eco nomic anal y ses of DUPIC fuel han dling, fab ri ca tion, cy cle and dis posal has proved it to be fea si ble, as well. It has been es tab lished that the DUPIC fuel cy cle can save ura nium re sources by 20 to 23% and also re duce the spent fuel for up to 67% [6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of actinides and fission products recycling scheme with the normal plutonium recycling scheme in fast reactors

Salahuddin

Iqbal

2013

NUCL TECH RAD PROT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple recycling of actinides and non-volatile fission products in fast reactors through the dry re-fabrication/reprocessing atomics international reduction oxidation process has been studied as a possible way to reduce the long-term potential hazard of nuclear waste compared to that resulting from reprocessing in a wet PUREX process. Calculations have been made to compare the actinides and fission products recycling scheme with the normal plutonium recycling scheme in a fast reactor. For this purpose, the Karlsruhe version of isotope generation and depletion code, KORIGEN, has been modified accordingly. An entirely novel fission product yields library for fast reactors has been created which has replaced the old KORIGEN fission products library. For the purposes of this study, the standard 26 groups data set, KFKINR, developed at Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Germany, has been extended by the addition of the cross-sections of 13 important actinides and 68 most important fission products. It has been confirmed that these 68 fission products constitute about 95% of the total fission products yield and about 99.5% of the total absorption due to fission products in fast reactors. The amount of fissile material required to guarantee the criticality of the reactor during recycling schemes has also been investigated. Cumulative high active waste per ton of initial heavy metal is also calculated. Results show that the recycling of actinides and fission products in fast reactors through the atomics international reduction oxidation process results in a reduction of the potential hazard of radioactive waste

show abstract

Economic Analysis on Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in CANDU Reactors—II: DUPIC Fuel-Handling Cost

Cited by 14 publications

References 4 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

“CANDLE” burnup regime after LWR regime

Comparison of actinides and fission products recycling scheme with the normal plutonium recycling scheme in fast reactors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About