**4.2. Electricity generation cost using seawater uranium recovery cost of uranium resources**

The cost of seawater uranium recovered with current technology is not sufficiently low. However, the economy of electricity generation should be assessed not for uranium purchase cost but for the entire cost. In this section, characteristics of electricity generation cost for NPG and the cost with seawater uranium are discussed.

The electricity generation costs of LWR were evaluated with conventional uranium and seawater uranium in Ref. [24] reflecting on the latest condition investigated by the cabinet of Japan [25]. The cost of LWR was evaluated assuming the PWR plant with electric power (gross) of 1300 MWe. In addition, the costs of HTGR were evaluated as well. That is evaluated based on a gas turbine high-temperature reactor 300 (GTHTR300) [26] designed by JAEA as a heliumcooled and graphite-moderated commercial scale HTGR with 600 MWt thermal power and 850°C outlet coolant temperature. The GTHTR300 is combined with four reactor units in a plant. Total thermal power of the plant is 2400 MWt, and gross electric power is 1100 MWe.

The cost of HTGR is cheaper than LWRs due to the cheaper construction cost and higher thermal efficiency of 45.6% [26] than LWRs of approximately 33%. The construction costs are compered in **Figure 7**. The cost of HTGR, only for the reactor component, is larger than that of LWR due to the lower power density design to offer higher levels of safety. Other parts of

**Figure 7.** Construction cost of HTGR and LWR.

construction costs of HTGR are cheaper than those of LWR because of the simple direct gas turbine system and rationalization of auxiliary system by modularization. For power conversion system, the direct gas turbine system of HTGR is more compact than the water and steam systems of LWR. The auxiliary system is also more compact for direct gas turbine system. Therefore, the electric system, control and instrumentation system are also reduced for direct gas turbine system. Finally, the volume of buildings is also small for HTGR.

The evaluated cost of the fuel and total electricity generation are listed in **Tables 2** and **3**. The fuel costs increase by approximately 10% by employing seawater uranium for both LWR and HTGR. For electricity generation cost, increases of approximately 3% are observed for LWR and HTGR due to the small fraction of uranium purchase cost as described above. The cost of LWR increases mere 0.21 cents/kWh, from 7.34 to 7.55 cents/kWh, by using seawater uranium. Even with seawater uranium, the cost of HTGR is cheaper than the existing LWR with

Safety and Economics of Uranium Utilization for Nuclear Power Generation

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72647

31

To discuss electricity cost with plutonium utilization including FBR, the cost evaluated by partitioning and transmutation (P&T) working group of OECD/NEA [27] is summarized as follows. In addition, significance of P&T is discussed later because it is said that P&T is an advantage of FR including FBR and accelerator-driven system (ADS). In the report, seven fuel cycle schemes are compared. The schemes are listed as follows. Basically, LWRs mainly generate electricity by using uranium except for the seventh scheme. They are (1) LWR once-through, (2) plutonium burning by LWRMOX, (3) TRU burning in FR, (4) TRU burning in ADS, (5) TRU burning in LWRMOX and ADS, (6) double strata, and (7) closed

**Fraction (%)**

**4.3. Electricity generation cost for various fuel cycle schemes**

Uranium purchase 16.9 Conversion 1.2 Enrichment 25.6 Fabrication 14.5 Storage 2.3 Reprocessing 26.2 Waste disposal 13.4

**Figure 8.** Fraction of electricity generation by NPP and CFPP.

conventional uranium.

cycle by FBR, respectively.

**Table 1.** Fraction of NPP fuel cost.

The electricity generation cost is composed of capital cost, operation cost, fuel cost, and social cost. For NPP, the capital cost consists of depreciation cost, interest cost, fixed property tax, and decommissioning cost. The operation cost consists of maintenance cost, miscellaneous cost, personnel cost, head office cost, and tax. The fuel cost consists of each part of the nuclear fuel cycle cost, which includes uranium purchase cost, conversion cost, enrichment cost, fuel fabrication cost, spent fuel storage cost, reprocessing cost, and waste disposal cost. These costs are the sum of yearly costs converted to present values and normalized by the electricity power generation. After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster, social cost, which includes political cost, compensation cost, and environmental cost, is considered as a part of the electricity generation cost. Environmental cost is required only for the energy source that releases CO2 gas.

To understand the characteristics, the cost fractions of the NPP are compared with those of a coal-fired power plant (CFPP), which has the largest electricity generation capacity in the world, as shown in **Figure 8**. As electricity generation cost for NPP, LWR cost with conventional uranium is employed. The CFPP cost is estimated by the Japanese cabinet secretariat by assuming a plant with electricity generation capacity of 750 MWe [25]. The cost for NPP consists of capital cost (25.8%), operation cost (32.2%), fuel cost (23.9%), and social cost (18.0%). The cost for CFPP consists of capital cost (15.2%), operation cost (13.5%), fuel cost (45.2%), and social cost (26.1%). The fraction of fuel cost of NPP is less than that of CFPP, which uses fossil fuel. Moreover, most of the fuel cost (38.5%) was spent on coal purchase. On the contrary, the uranium purchase cost for NPP is merely 4.0% of the entire cost because of the proportion of uranium purchase cost for NPP. The fuel cost in NPP consists of several categories from frontend to back-end as listed in **Table 1**, and the fraction of uranium purchase cost in the entire fuel cost is a small value of 16.9%. This is different from fossil fuel power generation, which directly obtains energy from the fuel without fabrication.

**Figure 8.** Fraction of electricity generation by NPP and CFPP.

construction costs of HTGR are cheaper than those of LWR because of the simple direct gas turbine system and rationalization of auxiliary system by modularization. For power conversion system, the direct gas turbine system of HTGR is more compact than the water and steam systems of LWR. The auxiliary system is also more compact for direct gas turbine system. Therefore, the electric system, control and instrumentation system are also reduced for direct

The electricity generation cost is composed of capital cost, operation cost, fuel cost, and social cost. For NPP, the capital cost consists of depreciation cost, interest cost, fixed property tax, and decommissioning cost. The operation cost consists of maintenance cost, miscellaneous cost, personnel cost, head office cost, and tax. The fuel cost consists of each part of the nuclear fuel cycle cost, which includes uranium purchase cost, conversion cost, enrichment cost, fuel fabrication cost, spent fuel storage cost, reprocessing cost, and waste disposal cost. These costs are the sum of yearly costs converted to present values and normalized by the electricity power generation. After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster, social cost, which includes political cost, compensation cost, and environmental cost, is considered as a part of the electricity gen-

eration cost. Environmental cost is required only for the energy source that releases CO2

directly obtains energy from the fuel without fabrication.

To understand the characteristics, the cost fractions of the NPP are compared with those of a coal-fired power plant (CFPP), which has the largest electricity generation capacity in the world, as shown in **Figure 8**. As electricity generation cost for NPP, LWR cost with conventional uranium is employed. The CFPP cost is estimated by the Japanese cabinet secretariat by assuming a plant with electricity generation capacity of 750 MWe [25]. The cost for NPP consists of capital cost (25.8%), operation cost (32.2%), fuel cost (23.9%), and social cost (18.0%). The cost for CFPP consists of capital cost (15.2%), operation cost (13.5%), fuel cost (45.2%), and social cost (26.1%). The fraction of fuel cost of NPP is less than that of CFPP, which uses fossil fuel. Moreover, most of the fuel cost (38.5%) was spent on coal purchase. On the contrary, the uranium purchase cost for NPP is merely 4.0% of the entire cost because of the proportion of uranium purchase cost for NPP. The fuel cost in NPP consists of several categories from frontend to back-end as listed in **Table 1**, and the fraction of uranium purchase cost in the entire fuel cost is a small value of 16.9%. This is different from fossil fuel power generation, which

gas.

gas turbine system. Finally, the volume of buildings is also small for HTGR.

**Figure 7.** Construction cost of HTGR and LWR.

30 Uranium - Safety, Resources, Separation and Thermodynamic Calculation

The evaluated cost of the fuel and total electricity generation are listed in **Tables 2** and **3**. The fuel costs increase by approximately 10% by employing seawater uranium for both LWR and HTGR. For electricity generation cost, increases of approximately 3% are observed for LWR and HTGR due to the small fraction of uranium purchase cost as described above. The cost of LWR increases mere 0.21 cents/kWh, from 7.34 to 7.55 cents/kWh, by using seawater uranium. Even with seawater uranium, the cost of HTGR is cheaper than the existing LWR with conventional uranium.

#### **4.3. Electricity generation cost for various fuel cycle schemes**

To discuss electricity cost with plutonium utilization including FBR, the cost evaluated by partitioning and transmutation (P&T) working group of OECD/NEA [27] is summarized as follows. In addition, significance of P&T is discussed later because it is said that P&T is an advantage of FR including FBR and accelerator-driven system (ADS). In the report, seven fuel cycle schemes are compared. The schemes are listed as follows. Basically, LWRs mainly generate electricity by using uranium except for the seventh scheme. They are (1) LWR once-through, (2) plutonium burning by LWRMOX, (3) TRU burning in FR, (4) TRU burning in ADS, (5) TRU burning in LWRMOX and ADS, (6) double strata, and (7) closed cycle by FBR, respectively.


**Table 1.** Fraction of NPP fuel cost.


**5. Energy security**

**5.1. Energy security of uranium resources**

also ensured from the viewpoint both of economy and politics.

geography from the viewpoint of energy security.

**Figure 9.** Global distribution of identified resources.

The accessibility is important from the viewpoint of energy security. Accessibility should be discussed from the viewpoint of geography and concession. The resources should be distributed widely from the viewpoint of geography, and the concession to obtain the resources should be

Safety and Economics of Uranium Utilization for Nuclear Power Generation

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72647

33

**Figure 9** shows distribution of identified resources of conventional uranium [15]. The top three countries Australia, Kazakhstan, and the Russian Federation occupy about half of the resources of the world. By the concentration of uranium resources, the risk of damage to sustainable energy supply increases owing to natural disasters, political instability, etc. In fact, uranium price in 2007 shown in **Figure 2** soared due to the catastrophic water inflow in Cigar Lake Mine in Canada [28], even though increase of uranium demand in China and India is also affected [15]. If the production of several mines in a certain region would be damaged simultaneously by large-scale disasters or political instability, the energy sustainability cannot be achieved. It is concluded that the conventional uranium resources have a problem of

**Table 2.** Fuel cost (cents/kWh).


\*LF stands for load factor.

\*\*SU stands for seawater uranium.

**Table 3.** Electricity generation cost (cents/kWh).

The electricity generation costs are listed in **Table 4**. The cheaper option is the once-through option of LWR. The cost of the second scheme of plutonium burning with MOX, where the FR is ignorable, is also cheap. Plutonium utilization in thermal reactor is not problematic from the viewpoint of electricity generation cost. The seventh scheme of multi-recycling by FBR shows the highest cost. That is increased by approximately 40% compared with the cost of LWR. The cost increase is mainly caused by fuel fabrication and reprocessing including MA.


**Table 4.** Electricity generation cost for each fuel cycle scheme.
