Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Direct Disposal and Pyroprocessing in Korea’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle
The purpose of this study is to compare the economic viability of direct disposal and pyroprocessing. This is because the selection of an alternative cannot be justified without a guarantee of economic feasibility. This paper sets the KRS (Korea Reference System) spent fuel repository and KAPF+ (Korea Advanced Pyroprocess Facility plus) as the cost objects, administers a cost-benefit analysis, and presents the results on the net cost. The results of the calculation demonstrate that the net costs of direct disposal and pyroprocessing are USD 17,719,319,040 and USD 19,329,252,755, respectively. The difference in the net cost for the two alternatives is thus not insignificant. However, the economic viability of direct disposal was found to be superior compared to that of pyroprocessing. In the end, it was found that the operating and maintenance cost of a pyroprocessing facility is comparatively high. Accordingly, direct disposal costs less than pyroprocessing. The direct disposal option is advantageous in terms of economical nuclear power sustainability.
Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Direct Disposal and Pyroprocessing in Korea’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle
The purpose of this study is to compare the economic viability of direct disposal and pyroprocessing. This is because the selection of an alternative cannot be justified without a guarantee of economic feasibility. This paper sets the KRS (Korea Reference System) spent fuel repository and KAPF+ (Korea Advanced Pyroprocess Facility plus) as the cost objects, administers a cost-benefit analysis, and presents the results on the net cost. The results of the calculation demonstrate that the net costs of direct disposal and pyroprocessing are USD 17,719,319,040 and USD 19,329,252,755, respectively. The difference in the net cost for the two alternatives is thus not insignificant. However, the economic viability of direct disposal was found to be superior compared to that of pyroprocessing. In the end, it was found that the operating and maintenance cost of a pyroprocessing facility is comparatively high. Accordingly, direct disposal costs less than pyroprocessing. The direct disposal option is advantageous in terms of economical nuclear power sustainability.
Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Direct Disposal and Pyroprocessing in Korea’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Sungki Kim (Autor:in) / Jinseop Kim (Autor:in) / Dongkeun Cho (Autor:in) / Sungsig Bang (Autor:in)
2021
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Unbekannt
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
New Developments in Pyroprocessing Technology
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1994
Nuclear fuel cycle and disposal of radioactive waste
| British Library Online Contents | 2016
Impact of Amorphous and Crystalline Silica on Pyroprocessing
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2001
Infrastructures and life-cycle cost-benefit analysis
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2012