Decommissioning costs

Decommissioning or disposal costs can be calculated in the same manner as maintenance costs, in Eq. (16.3) of Section 16.5. Decommissioning costs may be positive or negative. In some cases the equipment s depreciated value is greater than the disposal costs. The plant owner can sell the used equipment at a higher price than the cost of dismantling and transporting it. 

As environmental protection and recycling become more important, dumping and recycling charges and taxes will be used to control environmental pollution in the future. For the plant owner, this means an increase in the decommissioning costs. 

All capital equipment decisions should be based on the true or life cycle cost of the system. Life cycle cost includes all costs that will be incurred beginning with specification development before procurement to final decommissioning cost at the end of the compressor s useful life. In many cases, the only consideration is the actual procurement and installation cost of the compressor. While these costs are important, they represent less than 20 per cent of the life cycle cost of the compressor. 

Total installation and decommissioning costs for weU-field network. 

It is estimated that the installed cost of a 1 gW thermal solar power plant is about 3 billion. The mass production of solar collectors is just beginning, and it is probable that with it will come a substantial drop in collector prices. The cost of a new nuclear power plant, if one includes the waste disposal and decommissioning costs, is about 5 to 6 billion. On average, nuclear plants generate 1 gW of electricity, which is about twice the electricity production of typical fossil power plants. The cost of a 1 gW fossil fuel power plant (two 0.5 gW plants), if carbon-capturing technology is included and if carbon emission charges are also considered, is the same as nuclear plants. 

We recognize that one of the major challenges will be to accomplish these goals with an economically viable system. Today s economic approach to nuclear power is throu economies of scale. Our concept approaches the economic issue from a different perspective we rely on the economics of mass production, coupled with cost savings achieved from dramatically reduced onsite installation, operation and decommissioning costs, reduced site infiastructure requirements, and simplified type licensing to overcome the loss of economies of scale. 

Study tour in Italy to NPPs under decommissioning (Garigliano, Latina) and to Sogin headquarters meeting experts on decommissioning cost assessment and staff management. 

Decommissioning costs may also be a factor to be considered in economic evaluation, but deferred cash flow discounting usually greatly reduces the significance. An exception may be plants which create lasting pollution, but such plants are increasingly unlikely to be licensed for operation in the first place. 

The first step in the process is risk identification, which is accomplished by review of the proposal/study by suitably experienced experts using well-considered checklists. These must embrace all facets which may affect the project outcome, such as plant feedstock quality, process reliability, mechanical reliability, potential foundation problems, operational hazards, environmental impact, equipment costs, construction costing and labour, statutory requirements, contractual and legal problems peculiar to the country of construction, eventual decommissioning costs, and so on. Risks due to operational hazard are generally treated separately from commercial risk, and will be discussed in Chapter 12, but they are obviously an essential part of the overall process. 

The Fig. 3 represents the final results of the decommissioning costs radioactive component optimization. This component included costs of... 

Fig. 3. Relative Dependence of the Decommissioning Costs Radioactive Component.

Reference [28] defines the following objective for minimizing decommissioning costs of advanced nuclear plants ... 

The concept of a floating NPP makes it easy to realize a green lawn concept on the site of the floating NPP operation or if necessary, to replace the exhausted floating plant with a new one, contributing to a reduction of the decommissioning costs. 

Some components may be fabricated at the dedicated assembly facility others will be purchased from outside vendors. In addition to the reactor assembly, it is envisioned that the turbine generator and several building structures will constitute the major assemblies. The major assemblies will be delivered to the site as modules. Some components, materials, and services will be purchased locally. The site must be prepared, the modules installed and connected together. Operational costs will include the costs of operating the reactor system and the turbine/generator. Decommissioning costs have also been considered, but on a present value basis they are minimal. 

More recently, power generation cost for the MSR and a pressurized water reactor (PWR) was re-evaluated at the LLNL [XXX-20], using the original evaluation by the ORNL [XXX-2, XXX-19], To make a fair comparison, a 1 GW(e) plant size was assumed for both plants. Five cost components were considered, including capital cost, O M cost, fuel cost, waste disposal cost, and decommissioning cost. Assuming the capacity factor of the MSR as 90% and 80% for the PWR, the results are shown in Table XXX-3 the conclusion is that the MSR could be 20% to 25% cheaper than the PWR in total power generation cost. 

Table 8-4. N Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning Cost Estimate Summary. (2 sheets)...

A detailed analysis of MARS decommissioning costs is in progress but preliminary results indicate the possibility of keeping direct costs of decommissioning lower than 10% of direct construction cost, instead of 15-20% computed by OECD for traditional nuclear power plants. 

---