%0 Journal Article
%T Recycling versus Long-Term Storage of Nuclear Fuel: Economic Factors
%A B. Yolanda Moratilla Soria
%A Maria Uris Mas
%A Mathilde Estadieu
%A Ainhoa Villar Lejarreta
%A David Echevarria-L¨®pez
%J Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
%D 2013
%I Hindawi Publishing Corporation
%R 10.1155/2013/417048
%X The objective of the present study is to compare the associated costs of long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel¡ªopen cycle strategy¡ªwith the associated cost of reprocessing and recycling strategy of spent fuel¡ªclosed cycle strategy¡ªbased on the current international studies. The analysis presents cost trends for both strategies. Also, to point out the fact that the total cost of spent nuclear fuel management (open cycle) is impossible to establish at present, while the related costs of the closed cycle are stable and known, averting uncertainties. 1. Introduction 1.1. State-of-the-Art The current demand of resources and the increasing and intensive energy consumption per capita have motivated development policies of efficient forms of energy in the electric generation area. Nuclear and renewable energies play an important role in our energy future, helping to meet increasing electricity demand while at the same time decreasing carbon dioxide emissions [1]. As a nation develops its nuclear strategies, it must consider various aspects of nuclear energy such as sustainability, environmental friendliness, proliferation resistance, economics, and technologies and evaluate all the possible nuclear fuel cycle options [2¨C5]. Over the last decade, numerous assessments [6¨C14] have been developed in order to compare the two main spent fuel strategies: strategy one which is the disposal of spent nuclear fuel generated by nuclear power plants operating in a ¡°once-through¡± fuel cycle in a deep geologic repository and strategy two which is closing the fuel cycle by reprocessing and recycling the spent nuclear fuel. One of the latest economic analyses carried out by Ko and Gao [15] shows that the difference in the fuel cycle costs between recycling strategy and ¡°once-through¡± strategy is negligible. Therefore, other factors such as the intangible asset play important roles in determining the future nuclear fuel cycle options. De Roo and Parsons [16] have developed the first methodology to calculate the levelized cost of electricity extended to the reprocessing strategy. H£¿gselius [17] gives an explanation of why the world¡¯s nuclear power countries differ from each other with respect to their spent nuclear fuel (SNF) policies according to the five main broad explanatory factors: military ambitions and nonproliferation, technological culture, political culture and civil society, geological conditions, and energy policy. The UK¡¯s nuclear energy landscape assessment [18] also considers the long-term strategy for storage, reprocessing or disposal of UK¡¯s current and future
%U http://www.hindawi.com/journals/stni/2013/417048/