IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i14p7789-d593010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Direct Disposal and Pyroprocessing in Korea’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Author

Listed:
  • Sungki Kim

    (Radioactive Waste Disposal Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 989 Daedeokdaero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-353, Korea)

  • Jinseop Kim

    (Radioactive Waste Disposal Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 989 Daedeokdaero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-353, Korea)

  • Dongkeun Cho

    (Radioactive Waste Disposal Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 989 Daedeokdaero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-353, Korea)

  • Sungsig Bang

    (Department of Business and Technology Management, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Korea)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sungki Kim & Jinseop Kim & Dongkeun Cho & Sungsig Bang, 2021. "Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Direct Disposal and Pyroprocessing in Korea’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7789-:d:593010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7789/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7789/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sungki Kim & Hong Jang & Ruxing Gao & Chulmin Kim & Yanghon Chung & Sungsig Bang, 2017. "Break-Even Point Analysis of Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Capital Investment Cost Comparing the Direct Disposal Option and Pyro-Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Nuclear Fuel Cycle Option in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Euston QUAH, 2012. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in Developing Countries: What’s Different?," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1205, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    3. Sungki Kim & Wonil Ko & Sungsig Bang, 2015. "Analysis of Unit Process Cost for an Engineering-Scale Pyroprocess Facility Using a Process Costing Method in Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-23, August.
    4. D’Adamo, Idiano & Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Huisingh, Donald & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2021. "A circular economy model based on biomethane: What are the opportunities for the municipality of Rome and beyond?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1660-1672.
    5. Sidhu, Arjan S. & Pollitt, Michael G. & Anaya, Karim L., 2018. "A social cost benefit analysis of grid-scale electrical energy storage projects: A case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 881-894.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. SungSig Bang & SangYun Park, 2021. "Effect of Depreciation Method for Long-Term Tangible Assets on Sustainable Management: From a Nuclear Power Generation Cost Perspective under the Nuclear Phase-Out Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Lechón, Y. & de la Rúa, C. & Rodríguez, I. & Caldés, N., 2019. "Socioeconomic implications of biofuels deployment through an Input-Output approach. A case study in Uruguay," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 178-191.
    3. Sulaiman A. Almohaimeed & Siddharth Suryanarayanan & Peter O’Neill, 2021. "Simulation Studies to Quantify the Impact of Demand Side Management on Environmental Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-24, August.
    4. Biancardi, Andrea & Mendes, Carla & Staffell, Iain, 2024. "Battery electricity storage as both a complement and substitute for cross-border interconnection," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    5. Oh, Eunsung & Son, Sung-Yong, 2020. "Theoretical energy storage system sizing method and performance analysis for wind power forecast uncertainty management," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1060-1069.
    6. Padi, Richard Kingsley & Douglas, Sean & Murphy, Fionnuala, 2023. "Techno-economic potentials of integrating decentralised biomethane production systems into existing natural gas grids," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    7. Ivan Pavić & Zora Luburić & Hrvoje Pandžić & Tomislav Capuder & Ivan Andročec, 2019. "Defining and Evaluating Use Cases for Battery Energy Storage Investments: Case Study in Croatia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, January.
    8. Quan, Junlong & Kim, Se-Heon & Kim, Ju-Hyung, 2018. "A study on probabilistic social cost–benefit analysis to introduce high-efficiency motors into subway station ventilation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 92-100.
    9. Huijia Yang & Weiguang Fan & Guangyu Qin & Zhenyu Zhao, 2021. "A Fuzzy-ANP Approach for Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation of Grid-Side Commercial Storage Project," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Karin Meisterl & Sergio Sastre & Ignasi Puig-Ventosa & Rosaria Chifari & Laura Martínez Sánchez & Laurène Chochois & Gabriella Fiorentino & Amalia Zucaro, 2024. "Circular Bioeconomy in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Policy Recommendations to Optimize Biowaste Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, January.
    11. Gaurav Kumar Porichha & Yulin Hu & Kasanneni Tirumala Venkateswara Rao & Chunbao Charles Xu, 2021. "Crop Residue Management in India: Stubble Burning vs. Other Utilizations including Bioenergy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    12. Diego Teixeira Michalovicz & Patricia Bilotta, 2023. "Impact of a methane emission tax on circular economy scenarios in small wastewater treatment plants," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6575-6589, July.
    13. Anaya, Karim L. & Pollitt, Michael G., 2022. "A social cost benefit analysis for the procurement of reactive power: The case of Power Potential," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
    14. Muhammad Ikram, 2021. "Models for Predicting Non-Renewable Energy Competing with Renewable Source for Sustainable Energy Development: Case of Asia and Oceania Region," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 22(2), pages 133-160, December.
    15. Ding, Jie & Xu, Yujie & Chen, Haisheng & Sun, Wenwen & Hu, Shan & Sun, Shuang, 2019. "Value and economic estimation model for grid-scale energy storage in monopoly power markets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 986-1002.
    16. Karim L. Anaya & Michael G. Pollitt, 2019. "Storage Business Models: Lessons for Electricity from Cloud Data, Frozen Food and Natural Gas," The Energy Journal, , vol. 40(1_suppl), pages 409-432, June.
    17. Marzena Smol & Paulina Marcinek & Joanna Duda, 2024. "Circular Business Models (CBMs) in Environmental Management—Analysis of Definitions, Typologies and Methods of Creation in Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-25, January.
    18. Karim L. Anaya & Michael G. Pollitt, 2018. "Storage Business Models: Lessons for Electricity from Natural Gas, Cloud Data and Frozen Food," Working Papers EPRG 1804, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    19. Ambrosio-Albala, P. & Upham, P. & Bale, C.S.E. & Taylor, P.G., 2020. "Exploring acceptance of decentralised energy storage at household and neighbourhood scales: A UK survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Shan, Rui & Abdulla, Ahmed & Li, Mingquan, 2021. "Deleterious effects of strategic, profit-seeking energy storage operation on electric power system costs," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7789-:d:593010. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.