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.
Highlights
Radioactive Waste Disposal Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 989 Daedeokdaero, Department of Business and Technology Management, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Korea
The objective of this study is to increase the knowledge of the differences between two alternative solutions—direct disposal and pyroprocessing—for the back-end nuclear fuel cycle
The results of CB can greatly contribute to establishing a nuclear policy for the back-end nuclear fuel cycle
Summary
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. KAPF+ (Korea Advanced Pyroprocess Facility plus) as the cost objects, administers a cost-benefit analysis, and presents the results on the net cost. The objective of this study is to increase the knowledge of the differences between two alternative solutions—direct disposal and pyroprocessing—for the back-end nuclear fuel cycle. Korea is currently considering direct disposal and pyroprocessing as alternatives for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Each of these two alternatives has advantages and disadvantages. The results of CB can greatly contribute to establishing a nuclear policy for the back-end nuclear fuel cycle
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
