Economic Analysis on Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in CANDU Reactors-IV: DUPIC Fuel Cycle Cost

• Published in: Nuclear technology 2001-05, Vol.134 (2), p.167-186
• Main Authors: Ko, Won Il, Choi, Hangbok, Yang, Myung Seung
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Applied sciences; Computer simulation; COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION; COST; DESIGN; DOUGLAS POINT ONTARIO REACTOR; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; Energy; Energy conservation; Energy. Thermal use of fuels; Environmental impact; Exact sciences and technology; FCC LATTICES; Fission nuclear power plants; FUEL CYCLE; Fuels; Installations for energy generation and conversion: thermal and electrical energy; MATERIAL BALANCE; Mathematical models; MONTE CARLO METHOD; Monte Carlo methods; NATURAL URANIUM; Nuclear fuels; Preparation and processing of nuclear fuels; Pressurized water reactors; PWR TYPE REACTORS; Recycling; SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS; SPENT FUELS
• ISSN: 0029-5450; 1943-7471
• DOI: 10.13182/NT01-A3193

This study examines the economics of the DUPIC fuel cycle using unit costs of fuel cycle components estimated based on conceptual designs. The fuel cycle cost (FCC) was calculated by a deterministic method in which reference values of fuel cycle components are used. The FCC was then analyzed by a Monte Carlo simulation to get the uncertainty of the FCC associated with the unit costs of the fuel cycle components. From the deterministic analysis on the equilibrium fuel cycle model, the DUPIC FCC was estimated to be 6.21 to 6.34 mills/kW·h for DUPIC fuel options, which is a little smaller than that of the once-through FCC by 0.07 to 0.27 mills/kW·h. Considering the uncertainty (0.40 to 0.44 mills/kW·h) of the FCC estimated by the Monte Carlo simulation method, the cost difference between the DUPIC and once-through fuel cycle is negligible. On the other hand, the material balance calculation has shown that the DUPIC fuel cycle can save natural uranium resources by ~20% and reduce the spent fuel arising by ~65% compared with the once-through fuel cycle. In conclusion, the DUPIC fuel cycle is comparable with the once-through fuel cycle from the viewpoint of FCC. In the future, it should be important to consider factors such as the environmental benefit owing to natural uranium savings, the capability of reusing spent pressurized water reactor fuel, and the safeguardability of the fuel cycle when deciding on an advanced nuclear fuel cycle option.