Dynamic analysis of once-through and closed fuel cycle economics using Monte Carlo simulation

Although no consensus about the best approach to manage spent fuels has been achieved, economics is one of the major criteria for assessing and selecting acceptable management options. This study compares the reactor and fuel cycle costs of the closed system associated with sodium-cooled fast reactors and pyroprocessing versus the once-through system. We specifically investigated the fuel cycle transition cases of the Republic of Korea from 2013 to 2100. The results revealed that the closed system (34.00 mills/kWh as a mean value) could be more expensive than the once-through system (32.75 mills/kWh). In contrast, the once-through fuel cycle costs (8.31 mills/kWh), excluding reactor costs, were projected to be greater than the closed fuel cycle costs (7.77 mills/kWh) because of the increased costs of interim storage estimated by the Korean government and the limited contribution of backend fuel cycle components to the discounted costs. The capital cost of sodium-cooled fast reactor is the largest component contributing to the cost gap between the two systems. Among fuel cycle components, pyroprocessing has the largest uncertainty contribution to the cost gap. We also calculated the breakeven unit costs of SFR capital cost and PWR spent fuel pyroprocessing cost.