IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i12p3509-d574448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefit and Cost Ratio Analysis of Direct Disposal and Pyro-SFR Fuel Cycle Alternatives Using the Results of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Sungki Kim

    (Radioactive Waste Disposal Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 1045 Daedeokdaero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-353, Korea)

  • Jin-Seop Kim

    (Radioactive Waste Disposal Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 1045 Daedeokdaero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-353, Korea)

  • Dong-Keun Cho

    (Radioactive Waste Disposal Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 1045 Daedeokdaero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-353, Korea)

Abstract

This paper presents the results of various benefit–cost ratio (BCR) analyses of back-end nuclear fuel cycle alternatives. Korea is currently considering two alternatives for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel: direct disposal and pyroprocessing. Each of these two alternatives has advantages and disadvantages. To select one alternative, various evaluation criteria must be considered, since the superior alternative cannot be intuitively selected. A multi-criteria decision-making model can be a good methodology in this case. The analyses of benefit–cost ratios showed that the pyroprocessing alternative was more advantageous than direct disposal when using the results of the AHP and TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method. However, when using the results of the PROMETHEE method, the rank was reversed, and direct disposal was more advantageous than the Pyro-SFR fuel cycle. The results of BCR and MCDM can greatly contribute to establishing a nuclear policy for the back-end nuclear fuel cycle.

Suggested Citation

  • Sungki Kim & Jin-Seop Kim & Dong-Keun Cho, 2021. "Benefit and Cost Ratio Analysis of Direct Disposal and Pyro-SFR Fuel Cycle Alternatives Using the Results of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:12:p:3509-:d:574448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/12/3509/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/12/3509/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ur Rehman, Obaid & Ali, Yousaf, 2021. "Optimality study of China’s crude oil imports through China Pakistan economic corridor using fuzzy TOPSIS and Cost-Benefit analysis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    2. Trivedi, Anupam & Chong Aih, Hau & Srinivasan, Dipti, 2020. "A stochastic cost–benefit analysis framework for allocating energy storage system in distribution network for load leveling," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    3. Sepulveda, Cristian F., 2020. "Explaining the demand and supply model with the cost-benefit rule," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    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. Katarzyna Kiegiel, 2022. "Storage and Disposal Options for Nuclear Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-3, June.

    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. Yan Yang & Qiang Zhou, 2023. "Modeling and Simulation of Crude Oil Sea–River Transshipment System in China’s Yangtze River Basin," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Yang, Weixin & Pan, Lingying & Ding, Qinyi, 2023. "Dynamic analysis of natural gas substitution for crude oil: Scenario simulation and quantitative evaluation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    3. Cabrales, Sergio & Valencia, Carlos & Ramírez, Carlos & Ramírez, Andrés & Herrera, Juan & Cadena, Angela, 2022. "Stochastic cost-benefit analysis to assess new infrastructure to improve the reliability of the natural gas supply," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    4. Chengjiang Li & Tingwen Jia & Shiyuan Wang & Xiaolin Wang & Michael Negnevitsky & Honglei Wang & Yujie Hu & Weibin Xu & Na Zhou & Gang Zhao, 2023. "Methanol Vehicles in China: A Review from a Policy Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    5. Elzbieta Broniewicz & Karolina Ogrodnik, 2021. "A Comparative Evaluation of Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods for Sustainable Transport," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    6. Li, Chengjiang & Jia, Tingwen & Wang, Honglei & Wang, Xiaolin & Negnevitsky, Michael & Hu, Yu-jie & Zhao, Gang & Wang, Liang, 2023. "Assessing the prospect of deploying green methanol vehicles in China from energy, environmental and economic perspectives," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PE).
    7. Wang, Shuang & Jia, Haiying & Lu, Jing & Yang, Dong, 2023. "Crude oil transportation route choices: A connectivity reliability-based approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    8. Khan Babar, Abdul Haseeb & Ali, Yousaf, 2022. "Framework construction for augmentation of resilience in critical infrastructure: Developing countries a case in point," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    9. Tomasz Neumann, 2021. "Comparative Analysis of Long-Distance Transportation with the Example of Sea and Rail Transport," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Ma, Mingtao & Huang, Huijun & Song, Xiaoling & Peña-Mora, Feniosky & Zhang, Zhe & Chen, Jie, 2022. "Optimal sizing and operations of shared energy storage systems in distribution networks: A bi-level programming approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    11. Lu, Xi & Xia, Shiwei & Gu, Wei & Chan, Ka Wing, 2022. "A model for balance responsible distribution systems with energy storage to achieve coordinated load shifting and uncertainty mitigation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 249(C).
    12. Marcelino, C.G. & Leite, G.M.C. & Wanner, E.F. & Jiménez-Fernández, S. & Salcedo-Sanz, S., 2023. "Evaluating the use of a Net-Metering mechanism in microgrids to reduce power generation costs with a swarm-intelligent algorithm," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 266(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:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:12:p:3509-:d:574448. 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.