IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v114y2018icp221-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated system evaluation of nuclear fuel cycle options in China combined with an analytical MCDM framework

Author

Listed:
  • Gao, Ruxing
  • Nam, Hyo On
  • Ko, Won Il
  • Jang, Hong

Abstract

Our work is a first attempt to evaluate comprehensively the sustainability of future nuclear fuel cycle options in China based on dynamic system modeling combined with a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis. Considering six essential indicators, we developed an MCDM framework to evaluate and rank China-specific sustainability in line with the quantitative performance of four candidate options of fuel cycle transition scenarios from the existing to advanced nuclear energy systems through 2100. Four transition scenarios identified are 1) the direct disposal of PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) spent fuel, 2) the mono-recycling of PWR spent fuel through PWR-MOX (Mixed Oxides), 3) the PWR-MOX followed by Fast Reactor (FR), and 4) the full recycling of PWR spent fuel using FR. We also further analyzed the roles of the different representatives of decision makers and their impacts on the overall ranking by applying AHP, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE II methods from a weighting perspective. The results showed that Scenario 1 is the least sustainable and attractive fuel cycle option. Instead, Scenario 4 substantially satisfies the requirements underlying the current definition of nuclear sustainability, while remaining in line with China's closed nuclear fuel cycle policy. This strategic MCDM framework also provides flexibility to cope with the evolution and inherent uncertainties of technological development, which is conducive to identifying the trade-offs of future nuclear energy systems considered at a national level.

Suggested Citation

  • Gao, Ruxing & Nam, Hyo On & Ko, Won Il & Jang, Hong, 2018. "Integrated system evaluation of nuclear fuel cycle options in China combined with an analytical MCDM framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 221-233.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:114:y:2018:i:c:p:221-233
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517308236
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gao, Ruxing & Choi, Sungyeol & Il Ko, Won & Kim, Sungki, 2017. "Economic potential of fuel recycling options: A lifecycle cost analysis of future nuclear system transition in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 526-536.
    2. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting, 2014. "Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 397-405.
    3. Rogers, Martin & Bruen, Michael, 1998. "Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 542-551, June.
    4. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Haralambopoulos, D.A. & Polatidis, H., 2003. "Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 961-973.
    6. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    7. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    8. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, April.
    9. Choi, Sungyeol & Nam, Hyo On & Ko, Won Il, 2016. "Environmental life cycle risk modeling of nuclear waste recycling systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 836-851.
    10. Vladimir Kuznetsov & Galina Fesenko & Aleksandra Schwenk-Ferrero & Andrei Andrianov & Ilya Kuptsov, 2015. "Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems: State-of-the Art Survey on Evaluation and Aggregation Judgment Measures Applied to Performance Comparison," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-41, April.
    11. Julie L. Hass & Frode Brunvoll & Henning Hoie, 2002. "Overview of Sustainable Development Indicators used by National and International Agencies," OECD Statistics Working Papers 2002/2, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fang, Hong & Wang, Xu & Song, Wenyan, 2020. "Technology selection for photovoltaic cell from sustainability perspective: An integrated approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1029-1041.
    2. Wang, Xu & Fang, Hong & Fang, Siran, 2020. "An integrated approach for exploitation block selection of shale gas—based on cloud model and grey relational analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    3. Gao, Ruxing & Wang, Lei & Zhang, Leiyu & Zhang, Chundong & Jun, Ki-Won & Kim, Seok Ki & Zhao, Tiansheng & Wan, Hui & Guan, Guofeng & Zhu, Yuezhao, 2023. "A multi-criteria sustainability assessment and decision-making framework for DME synthesis via CO2 hydrogenation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    4. Yu-Sheng Kao & Kazumitsu Nawata & Chi-Yo Huang, 2019. "Evaluating the Performance of Systemic Innovation Problems of the IoT in Manufacturing Industries by Novel MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-33, September.
    5. Rigby, Aidan & Lindley, Ben & Cullen, Jonathan, 2023. "An exergy based assessment of the efficiency of nuclear fuel cycles," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruxing Gao & Hyo On Nam & Won Il Ko & Hong Jang, 2017. "National Options for a Sustainable Nuclear Energy System: MCDM Evaluation Using an Improved Integrated Weighting Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-24, December.
    2. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    3. Lerche, Nils & Wilkens, Ines & Schmehl, Meike & Eigner-Thiel, Swantje & Geldermann, Jutta, 2019. "Using methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to provide decision support concerning local bioenergy projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    4. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    5. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2006. "Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1885-1913, November.
    6. Polatidis, Heracles & Haralambopoulos, Dias A., 2007. "Renewable energy systems: A societal and technological platform," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 329-341.
    7. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    8. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    9. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    10. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    12. Al-Alawi, Baha M. & Coker, Alexander D., 2018. "Multi-criteria decision support system with negotiation process for vehicle technology selection," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 278-296.
    13. Marco Rogna, 2019. "A First-Phase Screening Device for Site Selection of Large-Scale Solar Plants with an Application to Italy," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS57, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    14. Abbas Roozbahani & Ebrahim Ebrahimi & Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib, 2018. "A Framework for Ground Water Management Based on Bayesian Network and MCDM Techniques," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(15), pages 4985-5005, December.
    15. A. Nureize & J. Watada & S. Wang, 2014. "Fuzzy random regression based multi-attribute evaluation and its application to oil palm fruit grading," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 219(1), pages 299-315, August.
    16. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    17. Mohammad Rahman & Lena Jaumann & Nils Lerche & Fabian Renatus & Ann Buchs & Rudolf Gade & Jutta Geldermann & Martin Sauter, 2015. "Selection of the Best Inland Waterway Structure: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2733-2749, June.
    18. Martina Kuncova & Jana Seknickova, 2022. "Two-stage weighted PROMETHEE II with results’ visualization," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 547-571, June.
    19. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    20. Haralambopoulos, D.A. & Polatidis, H., 2003. "Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 961-973.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:114:y:2018:i:c:p:221-233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.