Izvestia Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zawedeniy. Yadernaya Energetika

The peer-reviewed scientific and technology journal. ISSN: 0204-3327

Comparative evaluation of nuclear reactor technologies of different maturity levels on economic risk measures

3/22/2017 2017 - #01 Economics of nuclear power

Andrianov A.A. Korovin Yu.A. Kuptsov I.S. Murogov V.M. Andrianova O.N.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26583/npe.2017.1.15

UDC: 621.039.003

Less mature nuclear reactor technologies are characterized by a greater uncertainty due to insufficient detailed design information, operational data, cost information, etc., but the expected performance characteristic of the less mature options are usually more attractive in comparison with the more mature ones. The greater uncertainty is, the higher economic risks associated with the project realization will be. In this regard, within a competiveness comparative evaluation of less and more mature nuclear reactor technologies, it is necessary to apply economic risk measures to balance judgments regarding economic performance of less and more mature options. The economic risk terminology provides a good basis for judgments regarding risks-benefits associated with less and more mature nuclear reactor technologies to inform a decision-maker whose decisions should be responsible with a clear recognition of the risks and risks acceptance.

An evaluation of any risk metrics (such as, Value-at-Risk, expected shortfalls, tail Value-at-Risk) assumes calculations of different characteristics of probability distributions of associated economic and financial performance indicators (net present value, present value, internal rate of return, discounted payback period, levelized cost) and requires application of a Monte-Carlo based statistical analysis. An examination of applicability of statistical risk measures for different economic and financial performance indicators including uncertainty treatment techniques is presented in the report within a trial case study on a comparative evaluation of less and more mature unspecified LWRs. Based on the case study, it was possible to demonstrate a contradiction between the risks and performance for a set of economic efficiency indicators.

It is shown that application of economic risk metrics for nuclear reactor technology assessments and comparative evaluations seems useful to communicate with decision makers who are not familiarized with technical features and performance indicators but informed about economic risk concepts. The risk-based terminology may be effectively used to provide an interpretation of ranking results within a comparative evaluation of less and more mature nuclear reactor options. The presented simple case study has demonstrated the main trends associated with uncertainties incorporated into a comparative evaluation of less and more mature nuclear reactor technologies and lessons learned from the study should be further worked out for their accounting within comparative evaluation endeavors.

References

  1. Technical Reports Economic Evaluation of Bids for Nuclear Power Plants, IAEA Series No 396. – Vienna, 2000. – 224 p.
  2. Cost estimating guidelines for GENERATION IV nuclear energy systems, Revision 4.2. September 26, 2007. Available at: https://www.gen-4.org/gif/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-09/emwg_guidelines.pdf.
  3. IAEA. Financing of New Nuclear Power Plants. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-4.2, Vienna, 2008. Available at: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1345_web.pdf.
  4. NEA OECD. The Financing of Nuclear Power Plants. June 2009. Available at: https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2009/financing-plants.pdf
  5. IAEA. INPRO Methodology for Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems: Economics. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-4.4, Vienna, 2014, Available at: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1653_web.pdf
  6. NEA OECD. Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Development, June 2011. Available at: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/ 2011/current-status-small-reactors.pdf
  7. Andrianov A.A., Kuptsov I.S., Murogov V.M. Towards sustainable nuclear power development. atw: International journal for nuclear power. 2014, v. 59, iss. 5, pp. 287-293.
  8. Andrianov A.A., Kanke V.A., Kuptsov I.S., Murogov V.M. Reexamining the Ethics of Nuclear Technology. Science and Engineering Ethic. 2015, v. 21, iss. 4, pp. 999-1018. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-014-9578-0.
  9. Andrianov A., Kuznetsov V., Kuptsov I., Fesenko G. INPRO activities on development of advanced tools to support judgement aggregation for comparative evaluation of nuclear energy systems. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. 2014, v. 2014, 15 p. DOI: 10.1155/2014/910162.
  10. Kuznetsov V., Fesenko G., Schwenk-Ferrero A., Andrianov A., Kuptsov I. Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems: State-of-the Art Survey on Evaluation and Aggregation Judgment Measures Applied to Performance Comparison. Energies. 2015, v. 8, pp. 3679-3719.
  11. Expansion Planning for Electrical Generating Systems: A Guidebook. Technical Reports Series No. 241, 1984, IAEA, Vienna.
  12. Silvennoinen P. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Optimization: Methods and Modelling Techniques. Pergamon Press, 1982, New York.
  13. Belli P., Anderson J., Barnum H., Dixon J., Tan J-P. Handbook on economic analysis of investment operations, Operational Core Services Network Learning and Leadership Center, 1998, World Bank.
  14. Daniel K. Net Present Value (NPV) Definition. Investopedia, 2003. Available at: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv.asp.
  15. Glyn A. Holton. Value at Risk: Theory and Practice. Academic Press; 1-st edition (March 12, 2003), ISBN-10: 0123540100, ISBN-13: 978-0123540102.
  16. Artzner P., Delbaen F., Eber J. M., Heath D. Coherent Measures of Risk. Mathematical Finance. 1999, v. 9, iss. 3, 203. DOI: 10.11111467-9965.00068.
  17. Vose D. Risk Analysis, A Quantitative Guide (Third ed.), 2008, John Wiley & Sons.
  18. Wilks S.S. Determination of sample sizes for setting tolerance limits. Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 1941, v. 12, no. 1, pp. 91-96.
  19. Glaeser H., GRS Method for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Evaluation of Code Results and Applications. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations, 2008, v. 2008, Article ID 798901, 7 pages. DOI: 10.1155/2008/798901.

economic risks decision-making comparative evaluation reactor technologies uncertainty