Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2020, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (4): 394-404.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2020.04.008
• Resource Economics and Resource Evaluation • Previous Articles Next Articles
LIU Liangyan1,2,*(), CHENG Ming1,2
Received:
2019-07-13
Accepted:
2020-04-16
Online:
2020-07-30
Published:
2020-09-30
Contact:
LIU Liangyan
LIU Liangyan, CHENG Ming. Safety Evaluation of Sustainable Uranium Development in China Combined with an Analytical GAN Framework[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(4): 394-404.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2020.04.008
Key indicators | Sub-indicators | Cronbach α |
---|---|---|
Supply indicator | Resources (expected reserves, recovered reserves, recoverable reserves) (X1) | 0.802 |
Production volume (yield growth rate, storage-production ratio) (X2) | ||
Imported uranium mine (import concentration, import share, external dependence) (X3) | ||
Demand indicator | Population growth (X4) | 0.814 |
Lifestyle of residents (X5) | ||
Economic growth rate (X6) | ||
Technological advancement (X7) | ||
Production and consumption structure (X8) | ||
Alternative levels of other energy sources (X9) | ||
Supply and demand ratio of uranium resources (X10) | ||
Uranium resource consumption intensity (X11) | ||
Industrial structure (X12) | ||
Price indicator | Producer price (X13) | 0.898 |
International market price (X14) | ||
Production cost (X15) | ||
Marginal cost of mining technology (X16) | ||
Tax rate (X17) | ||
Technical indicator | Mining rate (X18) | 0.858 |
Uranium comprehensive utilization rate (X19) | ||
Science and technology contribution rate of uranium mining industry (X20) | ||
Scientific and technological achievements conversion rate of uranium mining industry (X21) | ||
Environment indicator | Nuclear waste (spent fuel post-processing) stock (Y1) | 0.856 |
Uranium mine regional distribution (Y2) | ||
Welfare loss (Y3) | ||
Uranium mine depletion cost (Y4) | ||
Environmental degradation cost (Y5) | ||
Environmental pollution loss (Y6) | ||
Strategic indicator | Control of domestic uranium mines (Y7) | 0.842 |
Control of international uranium mines (Y8) | ||
Strategic reserve for uranium mines (Y9) | ||
Global development strategy (Y10) | ||
Political indicator | External relationship stability (Y11) | 0.752 |
Domestic political environment stability (Y12) | ||
Uranium mining industry policy (Y13) | ||
Consumption habits of nuclear power (Y14) | ||
Management indicator | Human resources (Y15) | 0.791 |
Equipment integrity rate (Y16) | ||
Improvement rate of production safety system measures (Y17) | ||
Safety of import transportation channel (Y18) | ||
Influence control degree of import transportation channels (Y19) | ||
Environmental safety (Y20) | ||
Information identification and processing capabilities (Y21) |
Table 1 Confidence analysis of the overall indicator metrics for evaluating the resource safety of uranium in China
Key indicators | Sub-indicators | Cronbach α |
---|---|---|
Supply indicator | Resources (expected reserves, recovered reserves, recoverable reserves) (X1) | 0.802 |
Production volume (yield growth rate, storage-production ratio) (X2) | ||
Imported uranium mine (import concentration, import share, external dependence) (X3) | ||
Demand indicator | Population growth (X4) | 0.814 |
Lifestyle of residents (X5) | ||
Economic growth rate (X6) | ||
Technological advancement (X7) | ||
Production and consumption structure (X8) | ||
Alternative levels of other energy sources (X9) | ||
Supply and demand ratio of uranium resources (X10) | ||
Uranium resource consumption intensity (X11) | ||
Industrial structure (X12) | ||
Price indicator | Producer price (X13) | 0.898 |
International market price (X14) | ||
Production cost (X15) | ||
Marginal cost of mining technology (X16) | ||
Tax rate (X17) | ||
Technical indicator | Mining rate (X18) | 0.858 |
Uranium comprehensive utilization rate (X19) | ||
Science and technology contribution rate of uranium mining industry (X20) | ||
Scientific and technological achievements conversion rate of uranium mining industry (X21) | ||
Environment indicator | Nuclear waste (spent fuel post-processing) stock (Y1) | 0.856 |
Uranium mine regional distribution (Y2) | ||
Welfare loss (Y3) | ||
Uranium mine depletion cost (Y4) | ||
Environmental degradation cost (Y5) | ||
Environmental pollution loss (Y6) | ||
Strategic indicator | Control of domestic uranium mines (Y7) | 0.842 |
Control of international uranium mines (Y8) | ||
Strategic reserve for uranium mines (Y9) | ||
Global development strategy (Y10) | ||
Political indicator | External relationship stability (Y11) | 0.752 |
Domestic political environment stability (Y12) | ||
Uranium mining industry policy (Y13) | ||
Consumption habits of nuclear power (Y14) | ||
Management indicator | Human resources (Y15) | 0.791 |
Equipment integrity rate (Y16) | ||
Improvement rate of production safety system measures (Y17) | ||
Safety of import transportation channel (Y18) | ||
Influence control degree of import transportation channels (Y19) | ||
Environmental safety (Y20) | ||
Information identification and processing capabilities (Y21) |
Method | Variables | Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin | KMO value | 0.954 | |
Bartlett’s sphericity test | Approximate chi square | 2136.125 | |
df | 162 | ||
Sig. | 0.000 |
Table 2 Factor analysis fitness test using KMO value and Bartlett’s spherical test
Method | Variables | Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin | KMO value | 0.954 | |
Bartlett’s sphericity test | Approximate chi square | 2136.125 | |
df | 162 | ||
Sig. | 0.000 |
Chi-square value | P value | AGFI | GFI | RMSEA | CN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
197.740 | 0.000 | 0.846 | 0.886 | 0.175 | 187 |
Table 3 Model fitness index
Chi-square value | P value | AGFI | GFI | RMSEA | CN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
197.740 | 0.000 | 0.846 | 0.886 | 0.175 | 187 |
Chi-square value | P value | AGFI | GFI | RMSEA | CN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
138.682 | 0.076 | 0.832 | 0.938 | 0.029 | 194 |
Table 4 Revised model fitness index
Chi-square value | P value | AGFI | GFI | RMSEA | CN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
138.682 | 0.076 | 0.832 | 0.938 | 0.029 | 194 |
Key indicators | Sub-indicators | Technical department | Economic department | Social resident | Environmental department |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supply indicator | Resources (expected reserves, recovered reserves, recoverable reserves) (X1) | 0.225 | 0.337 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
Production volume (yield growth rate, storage-production ratio) (X2) | |||||
Imported uranium mine (import concentration, import share, external dependence) (X3) | |||||
Demand indicator | Population growth (X4) | 0.007 | 0.122 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Lifestyle of residents (X5) | |||||
Economic growth rate (X6) | |||||
Technological advancement (X7) | |||||
Production and consumption structure (X8) | |||||
Alternative level of other energy sources (X9) | |||||
Supply and demand ratio of uranium resources (X10) | |||||
Uranium resource consumption intensity (X11) | |||||
Industrial structure (X12) | |||||
Price indicator | Producer price (X13) | 0.012 | 0.203 | 0.104 | 0.004 |
International market price (X14) | |||||
Production cost (X15) | |||||
Marginal cost of mining technology(X16) | |||||
Tax rate (X17) | |||||
Technical indicator | Mining rate (X18) | 0.414 | 0.107 | 0.013 | 0.329 |
Uranium comprehensive utilization rate (X19) | |||||
Science and technology contribution rate of uranium mining industry (X20) | |||||
Scientific and technological achievements conversion rate of uranium mining industry (X21) | |||||
Environmental indicator | Nuclear waste (spent fuel post-processing) stock (Y1) | 0.148 | 0.006 | 0.512 | 0.474 |
Uranium mine regional distribution (Y2) | |||||
Welfare loss (Y3) | |||||
Uranium mine depletion cost (Y4) | |||||
Environmental degradation cost (Y5) | |||||
Environmental pollution loss (Y6) | |||||
Strategic indicator | Control of domestic uranium mines (Y7) | 0.009 | 0.103 | 0.073 | 0.049 |
Control of international uranium mines (Y8) | |||||
Strategic reserve for uranium mines (Y9) | |||||
Global development strategy (Y10) | |||||
Political indicator | External relationship stability (Y11) | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.062 | 0.078 |
Domestic political environment stability (Y12) | |||||
Uranium mining industry policy (Y13) | |||||
Consumption habits of nuclear power (Y14) | |||||
Management indicator | Human resources (Y15) | 0.173 | 0.107 | 0.217 | 0.059 |
Equipment integrity rate (Y16) | |||||
Improvement rate of production safety system measures (Y17) | |||||
Safety of import transportation channel (Y18) | |||||
Influence control degree of import transportation channels (Y19) | |||||
Environmental safety (Y20) | |||||
Information identification and processing capabilities (Y21) |
Table 5 Weight values of evaluation indicators from the stakeholders’ perspectives
Key indicators | Sub-indicators | Technical department | Economic department | Social resident | Environmental department |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supply indicator | Resources (expected reserves, recovered reserves, recoverable reserves) (X1) | 0.225 | 0.337 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
Production volume (yield growth rate, storage-production ratio) (X2) | |||||
Imported uranium mine (import concentration, import share, external dependence) (X3) | |||||
Demand indicator | Population growth (X4) | 0.007 | 0.122 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Lifestyle of residents (X5) | |||||
Economic growth rate (X6) | |||||
Technological advancement (X7) | |||||
Production and consumption structure (X8) | |||||
Alternative level of other energy sources (X9) | |||||
Supply and demand ratio of uranium resources (X10) | |||||
Uranium resource consumption intensity (X11) | |||||
Industrial structure (X12) | |||||
Price indicator | Producer price (X13) | 0.012 | 0.203 | 0.104 | 0.004 |
International market price (X14) | |||||
Production cost (X15) | |||||
Marginal cost of mining technology(X16) | |||||
Tax rate (X17) | |||||
Technical indicator | Mining rate (X18) | 0.414 | 0.107 | 0.013 | 0.329 |
Uranium comprehensive utilization rate (X19) | |||||
Science and technology contribution rate of uranium mining industry (X20) | |||||
Scientific and technological achievements conversion rate of uranium mining industry (X21) | |||||
Environmental indicator | Nuclear waste (spent fuel post-processing) stock (Y1) | 0.148 | 0.006 | 0.512 | 0.474 |
Uranium mine regional distribution (Y2) | |||||
Welfare loss (Y3) | |||||
Uranium mine depletion cost (Y4) | |||||
Environmental degradation cost (Y5) | |||||
Environmental pollution loss (Y6) | |||||
Strategic indicator | Control of domestic uranium mines (Y7) | 0.009 | 0.103 | 0.073 | 0.049 |
Control of international uranium mines (Y8) | |||||
Strategic reserve for uranium mines (Y9) | |||||
Global development strategy (Y10) | |||||
Political indicator | External relationship stability (Y11) | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.062 | 0.078 |
Domestic political environment stability (Y12) | |||||
Uranium mining industry policy (Y13) | |||||
Consumption habits of nuclear power (Y14) | |||||
Management indicator | Human resources (Y15) | 0.173 | 0.107 | 0.217 | 0.059 |
Equipment integrity rate (Y16) | |||||
Improvement rate of production safety system measures (Y17) | |||||
Safety of import transportation channel (Y18) | |||||
Influence control degree of import transportation channels (Y19) | |||||
Environmental safety (Y20) | |||||
Information identification and processing capabilities (Y21) |
Fig. 2 The net ranking flows in the five scenarios as influenced by indicator weights using GAN methods, with respect to (a) Fraction of precision and (b) Sensitivity performance.
1 | Álvaro E de S . 2018. Stakeholders’ manipulation of environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 68:10-18. |
2 | An J L . 2016. On basic stages, key areas and security in China’s nuclear energy development and utilization. Journal of University of South China (Social Science Edition), 17(2):13-20. (in Chinese) |
3 |
André M, Bengt J, Lars J N . 2014. Assessing energy security: An overview of commonly used methodologies. Energy, 73:1-14.
DOI URL |
4 |
Beims R F, Simonato C L, Wiggers V R . 2019. Technology readiness level assessment of pyrolysis of trygliceride biomass to fuels and chemicals. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 112:521-529.
DOI URL |
5 | BP. BP statistical review of world energy. June 2019[EB/OL]. 2019-6-1. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html |
6 | Cai Y Q, Yu H, Li X C , et al. 2019. Study on the technology of uranium resource prediction and evaluation with big data. Uranium Geology, 35(6):321-329. (in Chinese) |
7 |
Chol S, Nam H O, Ko W L . 2016. Environmental life cycle risk modeling of nuclear waste recycling systems. Energy, 112:836-851.
DOI URL |
8 |
Ciuulla G, Brano B L, Amico A D . 2016. Modelling relationship among energy demand, climate and office building features: A cluster analysis at European level. Applied Energy, 183:1021-34.
DOI URL |
9 |
Collins S, Deane J P, Poncelet K , et al. 2017. Integrating short term variations of the power system into integrated energy system models: A methodological review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76:839-856.
DOI URL |
10 |
Gao R X, Sungyeol Choi, Won Il Ko , et al. 2017. Economic potential of fuel recycling options: A lifecycle cost analysis of future nuclear system transition in China. Energy Policy, 101:526-536.
DOI URL |
11 |
Georges D . 2017. Security of mineral resources: A new framework for quantitative assessment of criticality. Resources Policy, 53:173-189.
DOI URL |
12 | Gorman M R., Dzombak D A . 2018. A review of sustainable mining and resource management: Transitioning from the life cycle of the mine to the life cycle of the mineral. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 137:281-291. |
13 | Gu C Y . 2019. Research on risk evaluation of China’s overseas mining investment based on deep learning, PhD diss., China University of Geosciences. (in Chinese) |
14 |
Helena R, Tsa L . 2018. Exploring corporate social responsibility practice versus stakeholder interests in Nordic mining. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197:668-677.
DOI URL |
15 | IAEA. 2019a. Experts discuss design options for future fusion power plant. Vienna: IAEA. |
16 | IAEA. 2019b. How can the IAEA help make sure that nuclear energy is sustainable? Vienna: IAEA. |
17 | IAEA. 2019c. IAEA climate conference ends with call for major nuclear role. Vienna: IAEA. |
18 | IAEA. 2019d. More newcomers eye nuclear power as UAE, Belarus set to start operating first nuclear power plants. Vienna: IAEA. |
19 | IAEA. 2019e. Spent fuel management: Four decades of research. Vienna: IAEA. |
20 | Li Y, Chen Q S, Liu Q Y , et al. 2015. Safety assessment and situation analysis of China’s overseas mineral resources supply. Resource Science, 37(5):900-907. (in Chinese) |
21 | Liu T, Liu Q F . 2017. Status of global uranium resources and development trend of nuclear energy. Modern Mining, ( 4):125-127. |
22 |
Long R Y, Yang J H . 2018. The current situation and Prospect of national mineral resources security research. Resources Science, 40(3):465-476. (in Chinese)
DOI URL |
23 | Long T, Chen Q S, Yu W J , et al. 2019. Research on the new pattern of global energy supply and demand. China Mining Magazine, 28(12):63-66. (in Chinese) |
24 | Peng Q M . 2017. Increase the deliverability of strategic minerals, promote rapid development of emerging industry — Speech on the “analysis and discussion conference of supply and demand situations of strategic minerals”. Land and Resources Information, 41(1):1-3. |
25 | Sungyeol Choi, Hyo On Nam, Won Il Ko . 2016. Nuclear power development can no longer be low-key. Energy, 1121:836-851. |
26 |
Teresa B . 2018. Measurement of mineral supply diversity and its importance in assessing risk and criticality. Resources Policy, 58:202-218.
DOI URL |
27 |
Tomaž Žagar, Aleš Buršič, Jože Špiler , et al. 2011. Recycling as an option of used nuclear fuel management strategy. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 241:1238-1242.
DOI URL |
28 | Wang A J, Wang G S, Chen Q S , et al. 2010. The mineral resources demand theory and the prediction model. Acta Geoscientica Sinica, 31(2):137-147. (in Chinese) |
29 | Wang Y Q . 2019. Research on the ecological compensation mechanism of mineral resources development for the whole life cycle. PhD diss., Beijing University of science and technology. (in Chinese) |
30 | Wen B J, Chen Y H, Wang G S , et al. 2019. China’s demand for energy and mineral resources by 2035. China Engineering Science, 21(1):68-73. (in Chinese) |
31 | World Nuclear Association . 2017. World nuclear performance report 2017. England and Wales: WNA. |
32 | Yan Q, Wang A J, Wang G S , et al. 2011. Survey of uranium resources and demand forecast in 2030. Mining Magazine, 20(2):1-5. |
33 | Yang Y, Wang J, Xu M . 2018. Thoughts on the development of sustainable nuclear energy system based on fast reactor in China. Chinese Engineering Science, 20(3):32-38. (in Chinese) |
34 | Zhang H T, Tang J R, Chen R Y , et al. 2014. Prelinimary discussion on the integrated management of mineral resources, assets and capitals. China Mining Magazine, 23(11):45-51, 75. (in Chinese) |
35 | Zhao Y, Ju M T, Shen L . 2011. Current situation and countermeasures of mineral resources security in China. Resources and Industry, 13(6):79-83. |
[1] | GAO Sheng, ZHAO Lin, SUN Huihui, CAO Guangxi, LIU Wei. Evaluation and Driving Force Analysis of Marine Sustainable Development based on the Grey Relational Model and Path Analysis [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(6): 570-579. |
[2] | LU Xiaobo, CHEN Xiaoying. Analysis of Obstacles to Sustainable Development of Ecotourism in Nature Reserves: A Field Investigation of Three National Na-ture Reserves in Liaoning Province [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(1): 50-58. |
[3] | LI Jianlong, LU Xiaofei, ZHANG Jingjing, MOU Linyun, ZHEN Lin, XU Zengrang, ZHOU Weihong. The Current Status, Problems and Prospects of Researches on the Carrying Capacities of Ecological Environment in China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(6): 605-613. |
[4] | CHEN Shaofeng, LIU Yang, SU Liyang. Sustainable Agriculture in the “Belt and Road” Region in Conjunction with the Sustainable Development Goals [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(6): 649-656. |
[5] | ZHANG Hua,YU Miao,SUN Cuiyang,LIU Jiangang. Relationship of Ecological Well-being Performance and Sustainable Economic Development in Liaoning Province [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(1): 39-47. |
[6] | ZHANG Linxiu, LIU Jian, FU Chao. Calling for Nexus Approach: Introduction of the Flagship Programme on Climate, Ecosystems and Livelihoods [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2018, 9(3): 227-231. |
[7] | WANG Guoqin, FU Chao, LIU Jian, ZHANG Linxiu, Ayub M.O. Oduor, Dagne Mojo, Mulubrhan Balehegn. Promoting the Nexus Approach of Climate, Ecosystems and Livelihoods in Africa through China-Africa Cooperation [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2018, 9(3): 232-236. |
[8] | TANG Chengcai, ZHENG Qianqian, QIN Nana, SUN Yan, WANG Shushu, FENG Ling. A Review of Green Development in the Tourism Industry [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017, 8(5): 449-459. |
[9] | YU Guirui, CHEN Zhi, ZHANG Leiming, PENG Changhui, CHEN Jingming, PIAO Shilong, ZHANG Yangjian, NIU Shuli, WANG Qiufeng, LUO Yiqi, CIAIS Philippe, BALDOCCHI D. Dennis. Recognizing the Scientific Mission of Flux Tower Observation Networks—Lay the Solid Scientific Data Foundation for Solving Ecological Issues Related to Global Change [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017, 8(2): 115-120. |
[10] | LI Wenhua. An Overview of Ecological Research Conducted on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017, 8(1): 1-4. |
[11] | Park Yoon-Ho, Yoon Won-Keun, Gordon Dabinett. A Study of the Improvement of Planning Systems for Land Use Control in Agricultural Heritage Sites [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2016, 7(3): 180-186. |
[12] | SUN Caizhi*, CHEN Xiangtao, CHEN Xuejiao. Evaluation and Hotspots Identification of Shallow Groundwater Contamination Risk in the Lower Reaches of the Liaohe River Plain [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2016, 7(1): 51-60. |
[13] | DONG Suocheng, LI Zehong, LI Yu, SHI Guangyi, YU Huilu, WANG Juanle, LI Jun, MAO Qiliang, HUANG Yongbin. Resources, Environment and Economic Patterns and Key Scientific Issues of the Silk Road Economic Belt [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2015, 6(2): 65-72. |
[14] | SUN Xueping, MIN Qingwen, BAI Yanying, Anthony M. FULLER. Analyzing Environmental Stress Counter-measures in Agricultural Heritage Sites in China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2014, 5(4): 328-334. |
[15] | ZHANG Canqiang, LIU Moucheng. Challenges and Countermeasures for the Sustainable Development of Nationally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems in China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2014, 5(4): 390-394. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||