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

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.

[1]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making , 1981 .

[2]  C. Hwang,et al.  Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria: Methods and Applications , 1986 .

[3]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2012 .

[4]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[5]  Vladimir V. Kuznetsov,et al.  INPRO Activities on Development of Advanced Tools to Support Judgment Aggregation for Comparative Evaluation of Nuclear Energy Systems , 2015 .

[6]  Abbas Mardani,et al.  Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014 , 2015 .

[7]  Alfred Voß.  Energy in a Sustainable Development Perspective , 2006 .

[8]  Sungyeol Choi,et al.  Economic potential of fuel recycling options: A lifecycle cost analysis of future nuclear system transition in China , 2017 .

[9]  W. Ko,et al.  Modeling and system analysis of fuel cycles for nuclear power sustainability (III): An integrated evaluation , 2014 .

[10]  G. H. Brundtland.  World Commission on environment and development , 1985 .

[11]  David C. Lane,et al.  Invited Review and Reappraisal Industrial Dynamics. , 1997 .

[12]  Robert Hill,et al.  Current Comparison of Advanced Fuel Cycle Options , 2006 .

[13]  Heracles Polatidis,et al.  Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework , 2003 .

[14]  Chuanwang Sun,et al.  Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey , 2014 .

[15]  Mujid S. Kazimi,et al.  Impact of Alternative Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options on Infrastructure and Fuel Requirements, Actinide and Waste Inventories, and Economics , 2009 .

[16]  Heracles Polatidis,et al.  Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Geothermal Energy: A Comparison Between the ELECTRE III and the PROMETHEE II Methods , 2015 .

[17]  Sungyeol Choi,et al.  Performance modeling and analysis of spent nuclear fuel recycling , 2015 .

[18]  Sungyeol Choi,et al.  Environmental life cycle risk modeling of nuclear waste recycling systems , 2016 .

[19]  Luc Van den Durpel.  Trends in the nuclear fuel cycle Economic, environmental and social aspects , 2001 .

[20]  A. A. Andrianov,et al.  Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems: State-of-the Art Survey on Evaluation and Aggregation Judgment Measures Applied to Performance Comparison , 2015 .

[21]  Claudia R Binder,et al.  Nuclear energy in Europe: uranium flow modeling and fuel cycle scenario trade-offs from a sustainability perspective. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[22]  E. Løken.  Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems , 2007 .

[23]  H. T. Yang,et al.  Incorporating a Multi-Criteria Decision Procedure into the Combined Dynamic Programming/Production Simulation Algorithm for Generation Expansion Planning , 1989, IEEE Power Engineering Review.

[24]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS: THE PROMETHEE METHOD , 1986 .

[25]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[26]  Martin Rogers,et al.  Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[27]  A. M. Yacout,et al.  Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model (VISION): A Tool for Analyzing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Futures , 2010 .

[28]  Hans-Holger Rogner,et al.  World outlook for nuclear power , 2013 .

[29]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[30]  Erich A Schneider,et al.  Autonomous dynamic decision making in a nuclear fuel cycle simulator , 2013 .