Journal of Resources and Ecology >
Safety Evaluation of Sustainable Uranium Development in China Combined with an Analytical GAN Framework
Received date: 2019-07-13
Accepted date: 2020-04-16
Online published: 2020-09-30
Uranium is the basic raw material for nuclear energy and is quite highly regarded. Developing a safe supply of uranium is important for safeguarding sustainable nuclear development. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the sustainability of uranium development in China based on dynamic system modeling combined with GAN (Generative Adversarial Network) analysis. We considered eight essential indicators and 42 sub-indicators as part of a detailed quantitative description, and then developed a framework to evaluate and rank China-specific sustainability in light of the quantitative performance of five options for fuel cycle transition scenarios. We began by using KMO sample measurements and the Bartlett Test of Sphericity to determine the suitability of factor analysis and the fitness of the corrected model map and observation data. We then analyzed the roles of different representatives of the decision makers and their impacts on the overall ranking by applying GAN methods from a weighted perspective. Five transition scenarios identified are 1) Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors, 2) Mixed Light Water Reactor + Fast Reactor, 3) Mixed LWR+FR fuel cycle scheme with heterogeneous irradiation, 4) Mixed Pressurized Water Reactor + FR fuel cycle scheme with plutonium recycled directly and repeatedly, and 5) Sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor power plant. The results showed that scenario 1 is the most unsustainable and highly confrontational scenario with a high demand for uranium resources, the lowest sustainability and a high level of antagonism among departments. On the other hand, Scenario 5 requires more advanced technology but exhibits less antagonism among the departments, and thus it largely satisfies the basic requirements for uranium sustainability and low levels of antagonism. In this paper, a safety assessment index system for the uranium supply is computed using a GAN framework. This system plays a crucial role in the sustainable supply and development of uranium, and provides flexibility for coping with the evolution and inherent uncertainties of the necessary technological developments.
Key words: uranium; sustainable development; safety evaluation; index system
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 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2020.04.008
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) |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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) |
Note: Stakeholders only score the weight for key indicators. |
Fig. 1 The integrated system evaluation of the five scenarios, with influences based on indicator weights, by four different departments |
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 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
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 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
|
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 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |