This report documents the scope and outputs of the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) collaborative project Key Indicators for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems (KIND).
The KIND project was implemented in 2014–2017 by experts nominated by Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Thailand, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Viet Nam as participants or observers in the different tasks of the project. Guidance provided here, describing good practices, represents expert opinion but does not constitute recommendations made on the basis of a consensus of Member States.
1.1. BACKGROUND
INPRO was established in 2000 to help ensure that nuclear energy is available to contribute to meeting the energy needs of the 21st century in a sustainable manner. It is a mechanism for INPRO members to collaborate on topics of joint interest.
One of the first activities of INPRO was to develop a detailed methodology for assessing the sustainability of a nuclear energy system (NES). Initially published in 2005 [1.1], the INPRO methodology appears as a multivolume report that explains how to evaluate NES sustainability in the areas of safety, economics, infrastructure, waste management, proliferation resistance, physical protection and environment. The methodology was fully updated in 2008 [1.2], with more recent updates being produced in 2014–2016 [1.3–1.6].
One of the objectives of the INPRO methodology was to support sustainability assessment for advanced nuclear technologies and systems, as evidenced by the title of the 2008 update — Guidance for the Application of an Assessment Methodology for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems. However, trial applications of the methodology proved to be difficult for less mature designs owing to a lack of data to support the detailed quantitative approach applied in it. Additionally, the methodology does not provide for the comparative evaluation of different NES options.
The INPRO collaborative project KIND was chartered to develop guidance and tools for comparative evaluation of the status, prospects, benefits and risks associated with the development of innovative nuclear technologies for the more distant future and to examine the applicability of such an approach to other problems, including those of interest to technology users and newcomer countries. To achieve these objectives, the project undertook the following, based on a thorough review of relevant activities accomplished previously:
— Developed guidance on key indicator (KI) sets for comparative evaluation of different NES options;
— Adapted and elaborated the state of the art methods for expert judgement aggregation and uncertainty analysis methods to enable effective comparative evaluation of such options;
— Performed case studies on trial application of the KIND approach and explored the potential of this approach in application to both innovative nuclear energy systems (INESs) and other NES options, including those of interest to technology users and newcomer countries.
The project was implemented by experts nominated by several Member States representing technology holder countries with large nuclear energy programmes and active R&D projects, technology users and newcomer countries that are considering or are in the process of starting a nuclear programme.
The case studies illustrated a range of perspectives and indicated what it was important to consider as part of a comparative evaluation of performance and sustainability involving INESs. The technology developer countries were mostly focused on the performance of INESs versus other innovative or established NESs. The newcomer countries were less interested in technical innovations and more interested in comparative choices of nuclear versus other means of energy production. This resulted in the approval of a mid-course change in the charter of KIND by the INPRO Steering Committee to broaden its scope to include support for comparative evaluations across the range of options of interest to the represented Member States, including the original scope of less mature NESs, but also more mature NESs and non-nuclear energy options. The KIND project formulated general guidance on the selection of sets of KIs and developed tools capable of supporting a range of criteria and options, while the specific
range of options to be included and the specific criteria to be used in an evaluation were left as a task for a Member State or an expert group conducting the comparative evaluation.
1.2. OBJECTIVE
The specific objectives of the KIND project were threefold. The first was to develop a theoretical basis and mathematical foundation for the comparative evaluation of options involving NESs. The nature of NESs requires the consideration of multiple areas: from economics and non-proliferation aspects through to public opinion issues, the technical details of reactor performance and waste generation. These indicators and attributes cannot easily be reduced to common units, such as monetary value, for comparison. Moreover, different groups of people with a stake in the results of the energy option analyses (stakeholders) will judge the importance of these areas differently. This leads to the need for the application of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods and deep understanding of their strengths and limitations.
Given the range of options that could be evaluated comparatively and the availability of performance data, appropriate analytical techniques are required to analyse and use the specific measured performance data, expert opinion and survey information, which are input values for KI evaluations. The purpose for providing this information is to give the user the background needed to understand how the provided tools work and how to identify and separate the differences between options that are due to formal (artificial) factors versus the differences that are due to actual projected performance (real).
The next major specific objective was to provide background for and guidance on developing the inputs required to apply MCDA methods for a specific energy system evaluation. This includes guidance on how to develop a set of KIs; a system of value/utility functions for the indicators to express preferences and equate input data with indicator performance; a system of weight sets for rolling up the individual performance indicators into an overall indicator (figure of merit) for each evaluated option; and a sensitivity analysis to determine the uncertainty in the outcome and investigate how that outcome could vary with different stakeholders’ views. This objective included providing information on potential KIs in each of the areas needed for the evaluation of an NES, covering different dimensions while emphasizing the primary attributes that need to be considered.
A graded approach to the number of indicators and the degree of detail of those indicators could be recommended based on the level of effort envisioned for the comparison. The type of indicator is to be tailored to the type of decision to be supported in the evaluation process, such as nuclear versus non-nuclear for a newcomer, or a technical evaluation of potential advanced nuclear options for an R&D programme. The purpose is to give users an open perspective on the range of possible evaluations and to instruct them on how to develop an appropriate system of KIs, value/utility functions and weights in order to perform the MCDA evaluation.
The final objective of KIND was to provide a software tool or set of tools, together with exhaustive user information; this includes the mathematical foundation of MCDA, the ability to furnish the tool with appropriate KIs and to customize inputs for the decision analysis to be performed, and information on how to use built-in graphics and tables to communicate the results of the evaluation.
Additional specific capabilities include the input and management of expert opinions for the evaluation of specific indicators when performance data are not available, and sensitivity analysis for examining the impact of uncertainty on KI input values, value/utility functions and weighting sets. The goal is to provide an easily accessible and simple to use tool that is capable of supporting the full range of comparative analyses covered by the KIND approach.
1.3. SCOPE
This report presents the outputs of the collaborative project KIND, the scope of which enveloped the following major tasks:
— Development of guidance on KI sets, their scales and utility functions for comparative evaluation of performance and sustainability of different NES options. The guidance provides recommendations on selection of the indicator set, the objectives tree structure and the scoring scale for indicator evaluation, as
well as on identification of the weighting factors for the comparative evaluation process. The comparative evaluation approach developed employs and further elaborates on the concept of KIs introduced in the INPRO methodology for NES sustainability assessment and first implemented in the collaborative project Global Architecture of Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems Based on Thermal and Fast Reactors Including a Closed Fuel Cycle (GAINS). The guidance includes general recommendations on the development of a KI set based on simple examples from the non-nuclear field and the evaluations involving an NES. It also includes a discussion on the attributes of sustainability in energy systems and explains how those attributes could be represented with the KIs.
— Adaptation and elaboration of advanced methods of expert judgement aggregation and uncertainty analysis for effective comparative evaluation of NES options. For this task, a large number of MCDA techniques and the broad experience of their application were reviewed, analysed and summarized. Multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) was recommended for comparative multi-criteria evaluation of NESs, as it is being widely used worldwide for different applied problems in general and in the nuclear engineering field in particular.
— Application of the KIND approach to innovative nuclear energy systems and other NES options, including those of interest to technology users and newcomer countries. For this task, a number of case studies were performed by project participants from IAEA Member States on the comparative evaluation of hypothetical NESs, national NESs (on a trial basis) and nuclear energy evolution scenarios. The technology holder countries were mostly focused on the technical performance of INESs versus other innovative or established NESs. The newcomer countries were more interested in comparative evaluation of evolutionary NESs or nuclear versus non-nuclear energy options. The case studies performed illustrate the effectiveness of the KIND approach in a broad variety of applications.
1.4. STRUCTURE
The report is structured as follows.
Section 2 provides background on the development of KIs for performing a comparative evaluation. This includes information on the main dimensions for energy sustainability and explanations on how those dimensions can be interpreted when applied to different types of evaluation, how to structure the criteria within each dimension and how to tailor the specific criteria based on the application. It provides examples of specific criteria, including those that have been used in prior evaluations involving NESs.
Section 3 presents information on frameworks for MCDA, including features and specifications of multi-attribute value/utility theory, and shows how to combine criteria to develop figures of merit for comparisons of different energy options. This section also addresses methods for treating uncertainty and the role of sensitivity analysis in examining the impact of uncertainty on option ranking order.
Section 4 provides information on scales for criteria and on the development of value/utility functions for judgement aggregation using KIs. This section covers statistical examination first, and then focuses on specific recommendations from the experts for performing evaluations within the framework developed by the KIND project.
Section 5 contains a number of case studies on trial application of the KIND approach for a variety of problems, performed by applying the specific tools developed for KIND. These case studies demonstrate the application range and reveal the application limits of the methods and tools discussed in the previous sections.
Section 6 documents the conclusions and recommendation of the KIND project.
The annexes provide an overview of previous NES evaluation studies (Annex I), the mathematical background and details of MCDA methods (Annexes II–IV), and a description of the KIND software tool that implements the MCDA approach for the performance of comparative evaluations according to the information given in this report, complete with an example of comparative evaluation (Annex V and the attached CD-ROM).
REFERENCES TO SECTION 1
[1.1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Methodology for the Assessment of Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles: Report of Phase 1B (First Part) of the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO), IAEA-TECDOC-1434, IAEA, Vienna (2004).
[1.2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidance for the Application of an Assessment Methodology for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems: INPRO Manual — Overview of the Methodology, IAEA-TECDOC-1575 (Rev. 1), IAEA, Vienna (2008).
[1.3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, INPRO Methodology for Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems: Infrastructure, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-3.12, IAEA, Vienna (2014).
[1.4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, INPRO Methodology for Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems: Economics, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-4.4, IAEA, Vienna (2014).
[1.5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, INPRO Methodology for Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems: Environmental Impact from Depletion of Resources, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-3.13, IAEA, Vienna (2015).
[1.6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, INPRO Methodology for Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems: Environmental Impact of Stressors, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-3.15, IAEA, Vienna (2016).