DOI: 10.33917/mic-5.124.2025.57-68

Boron-neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is one of the most effective treatments for a number of oncological diseases. Boron isotope 5¹⁰B is injected into malignant tumors and then it is irradiated with thermal neutrons. The decay products of boron (lithium and helium nuclei) have a low mileage in body tissue and destroy the tumor cells. Compact neutron generators (as neutron sources based on proton or deuton accelerators) are attracting more and more attention. Interaction of proton or deuton with a cooled target made of special materials generates neutrons. In the world there are more than sixteen BNCT centers based on compact accelerators at various stages of development. Russia has accumulated extensive experience in the production of compact neutron generators for various industries, however, their use for nuclear medicine purposes is just beginning. Therefore, the economic analysis of the creation of BNRT centers is of great scientific and practical interest. In this paper, an attempt is made to evaluate the effectiveness of investments into BNCT-centr and the cost of medical services using neutron generators, based on the methodology developed at the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI. Published information on the capital and operating costs of a number of foreign medical centers was used as initial data for the investment analysis of BNCT-centers. It is shown, as the result of the calculations, that depending on the amount of financial costs for BNCT-centr construction and operation and on the number of patients served, the cost of medical services may exceed 10-20 thousands of dollars per patient.

References:

1. Public report 2023. Rosatom. 172 p. URL: https://report.rosatom.ru/go/rosatom/go_rosatom_2023/app/rosatom_2023_1.pdf

2. Bichkurina M.I., Kasatov D.A., Kolesnikov Y.A. et al. Boron-neutron capture therapy: physical aspects. Oncological Journal: radiation diagnostics, radiation therapy. 2024;7(4):75-83.

3. Advances in Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. IAEA, Vienna, 2023. 416 p.

4. Kumada H., Takeji Sakae & Hideyuki Sakurai. Current development status of accelerator-based neutron source for boron neutron capture therapy. EPJ Techniques and Instrumentation. 2023;10(18):2-15.

5. Lipengolts А.А., Grigorieva Е.Yu., Ivanov S.M. et al. Current Status of Clinical Neutron Capture Therapy. Oncological Journal. 2018;1(1):15-18.

6. Chernukha A.E., Saburov V.O., Adarova A.I. et al. Three-dimensional models and complimentary geometry for dose evaluation in NG-24MT-based neutron. Izvestiya Vuzov. Yadernaya Energetika. 2022;3:158-167.

7. Golubev S.V., Izotov I.V., Razin S.V. et al. Compact neutron source for boron neutron capture therapy. Izvestya Vuzov. Radiofizika. 2016;59(8/9):760 -768.

8. Koryakin S.N., Kaydan N.A., Isaeva E.V. et al. Experience in using a portable domestic neutron generator in the schemes of gamma neutron therapy of pets with malignant neoplasms. Radiation and risk. 2018;27(1):94-106.

9. Ivanov A.A., Smirnov A.N., Taskaev S.Yu. et al. Accelerator neutron source for boron neutron capture therapy. Achievements of physical sciences. 2022;192(8):893-912.

DOI: 10.33917/mic-5.124.2025.13-20

The method of analytical calculation of the microeconomic criteria of investment efficiency into PWR Small Modular Reactor is presented as depending on the engineering, physical and economic parameters of the reactor. This method is convenient for multi-variant preliminary searches of acceptable criteria for SMR competitiveness. As a prototype SMR reactor is being considered RITM-200N with a period of 6 years of continuous work (before fuel overload) and the use of tolerant fuels, accident-resistant, consisting of metal ceramic composition in a chromium-nickel alloy shell (42XHM). The results of calculations of the relationship between engineering and physical parameters of the reactor, electricity costs and the payback period for investments are given.

References:

[1-19] see in No. 4 (123)/2025. p. 67-69

20. Petrunin V.V. Reactors for small nuclear power plants. Vestnik RAS. 2021;91(6):528-540.

21. Petrunin V.V. et al. Scientific and technical aspects of reactor RITM-200N creation for small nuclear power plants. Atomic Energy. 2023;134(1-2):3-10. URL: https://www.j-atomicenergy.ru/index.php/ae/article/view/5265

22. Semenov E. V., Kharitonov V.V. Analytical Construction of Grid Diagrams for Burnup of Nuclear Fuel of Different Compositions in Water-Cooled Reactors. VANT, Ser. Physics of nuclear reactors. 2024;1: 51-57.

23. Semenov E. V., Kharitonov V.V. Analytical Dependence of the Burnup on the Enrichment of Prospective Fuel and the Parameters of the Fuel Campaign of Reactors/ Izvestiya vuzov. Yadernaya Energetika. 2023;3:94-105

24. Future of Nuclear Power. An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003. 180 р. URL: https://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-full.pdf

25. Nuclear New Build: Insights into Financing and Project Management. NEA No. 7195. OECD 2015. 248 р. URL: https://oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7195-nn-build-2015.pdf

26. JSC Atomenergoprom. Annual Report, 2024. 235 p. URL: https://atomenergoprom.ru/upload/iblock/9de/

DOI: 10.33917/mic-4.123.2025.62-69

The method of analytical calculation of the microeconomic criteria of investment efficiency into PWR Small Modular Reactor is presented as depending on the engineering, physical and economic parameters of the reactor. This method is convenient for multi-variant preliminary searches of acceptable criteria for SMR competitiveness. As a prototype SMR reactor is being considered RITM-200N with a period of 6 years of continuous work (before fuel overload) and the use of tolerant fuels, accident-resistant, consisting of metal ceramic composition in a chromium-nickel alloy shell (42XHM). The results of calculations of the relationship between engineering and physical parameters of the reactor, electricity costs and the payback period for investments are given.

References: 

1. The white book of nuclear energy. A closed NFC with fast reactors / Edited by prof. Е.О. Adamov. М.: Publishing house АО «NIKIET», 2020. 502 p.

2. Alekseev P.N. et al. Two-component nuclear power system with thermal and fast reactors in a closed nuclear fuel cycle / Edited by N.N. Ponomarev-Stepnjy. М.: Tekhnosfera, 2016.160 p.

3. Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050. 2024 Edition. IAEA-RDS-1/44 ISBN 978-92-0-123424-7. 148 p.

4.  Abramova A.V., Kharitonov V.V. Analytical modeling of scenarios for the sustainable development of global two-component nuclear energy. Part 1. Scenarios with thermal reactors.Atomic energy, 2024;137(3-4)131-137.

5. The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy/ International Energy Agency (IEA). 2025. 99 p.

6. Small modular reactors: challenges and opportunities. NEA No. 7560, 2021. 56 p.

7. Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments. A Supplement to: IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS). 2020 Edition. IAEA, September 2020. 354 p.

8. Semenov E. V., Kharitonov V.V. Microeconomics of improving the safety of nuclear power plants based on using of accident tolerant fuel. Microeconomics. 2021;5(100):49-62.

9. Semenov E. V., Kharitonov V.V. Analytical dependence of the burnup on the enrichment of prospective fuel and the parameters of the fuel campaign of reactors. Atomic energy. 2023;135(1-2):77-83.

10. Low nuclear power station: a new direction of energy development. V. 2 / Edited by RAS academician А. А. Sarkisov. М.: Akadem-Print, 2015. 387 p.

11. Dragunov Yu. G. et al. Approaches to development of SMR based on a gas-cooled reactor. Atomic Energy. 2019;126(5):243-248.

12. Kudinov V.V. В. Low-power nuclear power plants in NIKIET. «Small nuclear power industry: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow (Retrospective and Prospects)». NIKIET, ROSATOM, 2022.  https://nsrus.ru/files/ks131022/

13.Smirnova L.S., Korolev S.A. Factor analysis for integrated approach to economic of Small nuclear power plant projects. Atomic energy. 2024;137(1-2):3-14.

14. World Nuclear Association. Small Nuclear Power Reactors. Small Nuclear Power Reactors – World Nuclear Association. URL:  world-nuclear.org

DOI: 10.33917/mic-3.116.2024.41-68

An improved methodology for calculating microeconomic criteria for the effectiveness of investments in energy projects (and other real sector projects) based on the UNIDO methodology is presented. It allows to determine the analytical relationship between the engineering and economic parameters of power plants (throughout their life cycle) and a set of microeconomic criteria for the effectiveness of investments. Strictly mathematically, the secondary criteria are derived from the definition of the main microeconomic criterion – net present value (NPV): the internal rate of return IRR, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and the discounted payback period DPP.  Numerous examples and graphic illustrations of estimates of individual parameters of investment projects and criteria for investment efficiency are given. A significant difference between the proposed methodology for calculating investment efficiency criteria is the use of average annual values of revenue, operating costs and production, as well as the introduction of special coefficients (φ) reflecting the effect of discounting cash flows at each period of the life cycle (construction, operation and decommissioning).

References:

1. Management of Nuclear Power Plant Projects. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-1.6. Vienna, 2020. 160 p.

2. Kharitonov V.V., Kosterin N.N. Criteria of investment payback in nuclear power engineering // Izvestiya vuzov. Yadernaya Energetika. 2017;2:157-168. (In Russ.).

3. Meso-economics of development / edited by Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences G.B. Kleiner. CEMI RAS. Moscow: Nauka, 2011. 805 p. (In Russ.).

4. Chernyakhovskaya Yu.V. Macroeffects of international NPP projects. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2018;1(166):29-37. (In Russ.).

5. Chernyakhovskaya Yu.V. Integrated NPP sales: how does it work? Economic and organizational aspects. Problems of Atomic Science and Engineering. Series: Physics of Nuclear Reactors. 2016;3:147-148. (In Russ.).

6. Kharitonov V.V, Kosolapova N.V., Ulyanin Yu.A. Forecasting of the investment efficiency in the multi-unit power plants. Vestnik of NRNU MEPhI. 2018;7(6):545-562. (In Russ.).

7. Akinfeeva E.V., Semenova D.Yu., Kharitonov V.V. Forecasting of investment efficiency in the digitalization of nuclear power. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2021;6:648-653. (In Russ.).

8. Klauz A.V., Frolov I.E., Kharitonov V.V., Shaeva A.A. Calculation methodology of the criteria of the economic efficiency of the investments into the nuclear icebreakers. Izvestiya vuzov. Yadernaya Energetika. 2021;3:107-120. (In Russ.).

9. Listopadov I.Yu., Kharitonov V.V. Estimation of Investment Efficiency in Nuclear Desalination of Sea Water. Atomic Energy. 2021;130(3):174-179. (In Russ.).

10. Economic Evaluation of Bids for Nuclear Power Plants. 1999 Edition. Technical Reports Series No. 396, IAEA, Vienna, 2000. 224 p.

11. INPRO Methodology for Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems: Economics. INPRO Manual. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-4.4. IAEA, Vienna, 2014. 92 p.

DOI: 10.33917/mic-2.97.2021.55-63

The estimates of the competitiveness of the balanced closed nuclear fuel cycle with thermal reactors VVER, PWR and BWR and innovative REMIX-fuel are given. REMIX-fuel obtained by reprocessing spent fuel. Considered three options for REMIX-fuel — А, Б and C, differing in the way of achieving enrichment (concentration of fissile isotopes ²³⁵U and ²³⁹Pu), needed for reactors. The fuel component of the NPP electricity cost is used as competitiveness criterion, which reflects all the costs of the fuel cycle for both before the reactor and after the reactor stages. The developed economic-mathematical model of the fuel cycle makes it possible to calculate a cost indicators of nuclear fuel components and the fuel components of the NPP electricity cost depending on the cost characteristics of key technological conversions, including reprocessing of spent fuel, enrichment of regenerated and natural uranium, manufacture of fuel assemblies, radioactive waste management and compare with the traditional fuel cycle.