This study proposes a decision-making model based on the economic assessment of phased decommissioning of energy facilities, specifically focusing on a nuclear power plant (NPP). The objective of the research is to develop and validate an economic assessment methodology for comparing immediate and deferred dismantling strategies for a 1000 MW NPP unit. For economic justification, a comparison of the economic expenses is proposed based on the accumulation of radioactive waste, safety activities, and labour costs for the two options. The methods employed include a multifactorial analysis based on expert assessments, considering economic expenses related to radioactive waste accumulation, safety activities, and labour costs. Criteria with differences exceeding 10% for quantitative indicators and fundamental differences for qualitative indicators were deemed significant; each criterion’s acceptability was weighted accordingly. The key results show that deferred dismantling is economically preferable; the total score for deferred dismantling exceeds that of immediate dismantling by approximately 10% (14.16 points vs. 15.86 points). A comparison of block schedules for decommissioning, dynamics of labour costs, and annual volumes of reprocessed radioactive waste for the baseline and optimised deferred dismantling options shows that both options meet the continuity condition of the ‘active’ stages. At the same time, the optimised option demonstrates significant advantages in the uniformity of labour costs and workload of radioactive waste treatment plants during dismantling. The activities at the stage of power unit decommissioning are proposed to be carried out within the licence framework for its operation by the organisational and technical solutions to ensure safety during operation. The deterministic consequences and risks will align with the safety assessment, which will be determined based on the latest analysis results, taking into account sustainable operation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hrinchenko et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: