Economic Analysis of the Fuel Cycle Options Considered in

Economic Analysis

of the Fuel Cycle Options

Considered in Korea

Hyo On Nam

2019.11.05.

Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute

2

Nuclear Energy in Korea

3

Site

Gori

Wolseong

Hanbit

Hanul

Total

In Operation(MWe)

7 (7,350)

6 (4,779)

6 (5,900)

6 (5,900)

25 (23,929)

UnderConstruction

(MWe)

2 (2,800)

-

-

2 (2,800)

4 (5,600)

Total(MWe)

9 (10,150)

6 (4,779)

6 (5,900)

8 (8,700)

29 (29,529)

As of Oct, 2019

Nuclear

23.4%Fossil Fuel

69.7%

Hydro, etc

6.9%

Source : www. epsis.kpx.or.kr

Source : www. khnp.co.kr

Ratio of Electricity Generation(2018)

25 NPPs are operating (2019.10)

* Early closure of Wolseong unit 1 was decided, and currently is not generating an electricity • Provide 23.4% (133,505 GWh) of total electricity in 2018

Wolseong (#1,2,3,4)

Shin-Wolseong (#1,2)

Hanul (#1,2,3,4,5,6)

Shin-Hanul (#1,2)

Gori (#2,3,4)

Shin-Gori (#1,2,3)

Shin-Gori (#4,5,6)

Hanbit

(#1,2,3,4,5,6)

◆ Under Construction

− APR1400 : Shin-Gori (#4,5,6), Shin-Hanul(#1,2)

Spent Nuclear Fuel Generation

4

Current status of SF storage (As of Dec. 2018)

– All PWR spent fuels are stored in the pool of NPP sites

– Some of CANDU spent fuels are stored in AR dry storage

– On-site SF storage is being saturated

Sites CapacityCurrent

storage

Saturation

Rate

Expected

saturation*

PWR

Kori 8,115 6,271 77.3% 2031 (2025)

Saewool 780 100 12.8% 2065

Hanbit 9,017 6,302 67.7% 2029

Hanul 7,066 5,531 78.3% 2030

Shin-Wolsong 1,046 386 36.9% 2042

Sum 26,024 18,590 71.4% -

CANDU Wolsong 499,632 451,260 90.3% 2021

(unit: assembly/bundle)

(about 16,600 tHM) * Estimated by KEEI in 2019

Overview of National Programme

5

MOTIE announced the 8th Basic Plan on Electricity Demand and

Supply for the next 15 years (2017~2031)

– Phased elimination of nuclear and coal energy

– Expansion of renewable energy (solar and wind) and LNG

– Reinforcement of demand side management

# MOTIE : Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy

22.5

27.5

20.4

36.9

42

39.9

37.4

42

44.3

11.3

23.3

38.8

2017

2022

2030

Power capacity outlook (unit: GWe)

Nuclear Coal LNG Renewable

✓ Shutdown of 1 NPP (Kori #1)

✓ Early shutdown of 1 NPP (Wolsong #1)

✓ Construction of 5 NPPs

✓ Cancellation of 6 planned NPPs

✓ No life extension of 10 old NPPs

National Framework for RWM in Korea

6

Regulatory

Work

Nuclear Mat’l

Control

President

Prime Minister

✓ Responsible for basic and

fundamental technologies

development for AFC and other

future reactor system

※ ACRONYMS

AEC: Atomic Energy Commission

NSSC: Nuclear Safety and Security Commission

KINS: Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

KINAC: Korea Institute of Nuclear Nonproliferation and Control

KHNP: Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co.

KORAD: Korea Radioactive waste Agency

KAERI: Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute

Korea Atomic Energy

Research Institute

Atomc Energy

Commisssion

NSSC (Nuclear Safety and

Security Commission)

Regulator

Implementer & Promoter

A/E + NSSS

Design

Nuclear

Fuel Supply

✓ Responsible for the

management of all kinds of

radioactive waste

produced in Korea

including R&D projects

related to transportation,

storage and disposal.

Korea Radioactive

Waste Agency

Electric Power

Co.

Hydro & Nuclear

Power Co.

Ministry of Trade, Industry

and Energy (MOTIE)

Ministry of Science

and ICT (MSIT)


7

Public Engagement Commission on SNF (PECOS)


Master Plan for HLW Management (2016.07)

8


9

Reconsideration of National SF Management Programme

– (2017/6) President Moon’s 5-year-plan included the reexamination of

spent fuel management policy through a public engagement.

– (2018/5~11) MOTIE has operated a preparation group for the

reexamination.

– (2019/4) MOTIE has started to form a reexamination committee with 15

neutral specialists for the amendment of the public engagement

• Lack of participation of public peoples around NPPs and NGOs

• Change of the amounts of SNFs generated due to the energy

transition policy of government

• Update the siting process and support process to local community

Development of Advanced Nuclear System

10

Pyro-SFR system is expected to provide a long-term solution for PWR

spent nuclear fuel management.

“Dirty Fuel, Clean Waste!”

Deep Geological Disposal area

HLW amount

Radiotoxicity Crossover TimeDOWN!

PWR

Final Disposal

Spent

Fuel

Interim Storage

High Level Waste (HLW)

Economic Analysis of the NFC Options

Workflow and Basic Assumptions

11

System Definition

Modeling

Material Flow

Economic Evaluation

Uncertainty / Sensitivity

Analysis

Cost Database

▶ Primary goal of Pyro-SFR cycle

▪ Minimize the waste

▪ SFR is a burner

▶ Dynamics is used

▪ To consider all the SFs generated in

the past and in the future

▪ PWR, PHWR, SFRs are considered in

the transition scenario

▪ Only PWR SFs are assumed to be

recycled

▶ Time frame

▪ 2035. Start of interim storage

▪ 2045. Start of commercial

pyroprocessing facility

▪ 2050. Start of commercial SFR

▪ 2053. Start of disposal site

OT cycle

Pyro-SFR cycle

12

PWRDeep geological

Disposal

Interim

Storage

40 yrs of cooling

PWR

Deep geological

Disposal

Pyro-processing

10 yrs of cooling

Interim

Storage

Near surface

/Intermediate

HLW

Cs/Sr -waste

LILW

OT cycle vs. Pyro-SFR cycle

SFR

TRU fuel

SFR SF recycle

Decay

Storage

13

Modeling systems with Transition Scenario

Transition Scenario

for Pyro-SFR cycle

The 7th Basic Plan on

Electricity Demand and Supply

(2015)

- SFR capacity more than the equilibrium is needed to burn-out PWR SFs

- At around 2140, it reaches an equilibrium (PWR/SFR ≈ 2)

Assumed capacity of NPPs Fuel Stock between OT vs. Pyro-SFR cycle

14

Material Flow

PWR SF Pyro. Treatment (ton/yr)

SFR SF Pyro. + TRU Fuel Fab. (ton/yr)

Natural Uranium Use (ktU)

PWR SF Interim Storage Amount (ton)

OT cycle

Pyro-SFR cycle

OT cycle

Pyro-SFR cycle

15

Levelized cost of electricity generation (LCOE)– Reactor cost + fuel cycle cost

• Reactor cost: capital cost for construction of a nuclear power plant, operation and maintenance cost, and the decontamination and decommissioning cost

• Fuel cycle cost: all the other cost regarding front-end and back-end fuel cycle steps, such as uranium mining/milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, electrochemical recycling, interim storage, disposal, etc

Economic Analysis

Economic Analysis

Unit cost

Material Flow

Economics of Pyro-SFR cycle from a dynamic analysis

(vs. OT cycle)

– All the cost from 2016 to 2100 were analyzed and compared

– Basis year: 2016, discount rate (3.55%), inflation rate (1.40%) were

assumed

Results – Economics of Pyro-SFR cycle

OT (A) Pyro-SFR(B) Gap (B-A) Cost Increase

LCOE (mills/kWh)35.53

(σ = 3.75)

36.44

(σ = 3.41)

+0.91 2.54%

Fuel Cycle Cost (mills/kWh)7.33

(σ = 1.32)

7.64

(σ = 1.27)

+0.31 4.16%

16

Distribution of LCOE Distribution of Fuel Cycle Cost

OT cycle vs. Pyro-SFR cycle

17

About 80% of LCOE is a reactor cost

Compared to the OT cycle, cost for front-end, interim storage,

disposal cost can be saved but there are increase in the cost for the

processing and LILW disposal

Results – Economics of Pyro-SFR cycle

Cost breakdown of LCOE Cost breakdown of fuel cycle cost

Reactor Capital

Reactor O&M, D&D

Pyro

18

Sensitivity Analysis

– To understand how the uncertainty in the output can be apportioned to

difference sources of uncertainty in the inputs

Capital costs are main contributor

Pyroprocessing cost is found to be the most sensitive

fuel cycle cost

Results – Sensitivity Analysis

LCOE Gap between the OT cycle and Pyro-SFR cycle

SFR Capital

PWR SF Pyro.

SFR CapitalPWR SF Pyro.

19

Discount rate (3.55%) is used in this study,

Zero discount rate showed a largest difference in the

LCOE

– The LCOE of the Pyro-SFR cycle is about 7.3% higher than the LCOE

of the OT cycle

About 10% discount rate,

– the LCOE gap decreases almost to zero

Results – Effect of Discount Rate

20

The economics of the Pyro-SFR cycle is compared with

the OT cycle

– LCOEs were close to each other within one standard deviation of the

mean

– Even 0% discount rate was considered, cost difference were about 7%

SFR capital cost & Pyro. cost are the main contributor of

the cost gap

– should be decreased for the economics of the Pyro-SFR cycle

Summary for the Economic Analysis

OT (A) Pyro-SFR(B) Gap (B-A) Cost Increase

LCOE (mills/kWh)35.53

(σ = 3.75)

36.44

(σ = 3.41)

+0.91 2.54%

Fuel Cycle Cost (mills/kWh)7.33

(σ = 1.32)

7.64

(σ = 1.27)

+0.31 4.16%

Cost for Nuclear Waste Management

Radioactive Waste Management Act (2008)

– Establishment of Korea Radioactive-waste Management Corporation of

which responsibilities includes spent fuel interim-storage and disposal

– Establishment of waste fund

RWMA Article 14 (Expenses for RWM)

RWMA Article 15 (Charges for Management of SNF)

RWMA Article 17 (Reserve for Cost of Decomm. of NPP, etc)

Expenses for RWM shall be reviewed in every 2 years

– LILW, approx. $12,000 / 200 liters

– PWR SF, approx. $ 280,000 / Assembly

– CANDU SF, approx. $ 11,000 / Assembly

21

Cost Estimation for Pyroprocess

Bottom-up costing based on the conceptual design

– 400 tHM/yr for PWR SF processing

– Total cost consists of capital cost, O&M cost, and D&D cost

– NPV of the cost,

– Levelized Unit Cost,

References

–

–

22

W.I. Ko et al., “Preliminary conceptual design and cost estimation for Korea Advanced

Pyroprocessing Facility Plus (KAPF+)”, Nuclear Engineering and Design 277 (2014) 212-224

W.I. Ko et al., “Preliminary conceptual design and cost estimation for SFR Fuel Manufacturing

Facility (SFMF)”, Nuclear Engineering and Design 277 (2014) 225-233


Annual Cash Flow of Facility

23


Capital Cost

24

O&M Cost

Total Cost

Summary

Spent Fuels

– About 16,000 tHM of spent fuels are generated from 26 NPPs

– Most of the SF are stored in the AR water pools except some of

CANDU fuels which are stored in the Silos and MACSTOR

National Strategy

– Master plan for HLW management was established to secure the

interim and disposal site and facilities by MOTIE

– R&D on the Pyroprocessing and SFR have been conducted as an

alternative for the SF management by MSIT

Economic Analysis on the NFC options

– Economic evaluations have been performed for the considered NFC

options to support the decision process

Estimation of Unit Cost

– Expenses for RWM is charged based on the RWM Act

– Cost for the Pyro. plant was estimated based on the conceptual design25

Documents

Economic Analysis of the Fuel Cycle Options Considered in