scholarly journals Towards Advanced Robotic Manipulations for Nuclear Decommissioning

Author(s):  
Naresh Marturi ◽  
Alireza Rastegarpanah ◽  
Vijaykumar Rajasekaran ◽  
Valerio Ortenzi ◽  
Yasemin Bekiroglu ◽  
...  
Kerntechnik ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 9-13
Author(s):  
R. D. Wendling ◽  
M. Paul

2000 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Boatsman ◽  
Inder K. Khurana ◽  
Martha L. Loudder

This paper analyzes the accounting effects of the proposed standard Accounting for Obligations Associated with the Retirement of Long-Lived Assets, and considers the economic effects of accounting data in electric utility rate-making. Specifically, we model the financial statement with respect to nuclear decommissioning costs and posit several likely scenarios for the economic implications for the affected firms, their electric consumers, and the rate regulators. The model reveals that the sign of the equity adjustment at adoption and the change in ongoing expense will depend on (1) the age of the plant, and (2) the ratio of the current cost estimate used to compute depreciation under the current practice and the estimated future decommissioning cost. When the model is applied to firms with nuclear plants, we find that the financial statement effects at adoption will be substantial for many firms, and that the ongoing effects of the standard will be to increase the reported expenses of decommissioning substantially. These findings are of interest for three reasons: first, contrary to our data, many of the firms analyzed have stated in their annual reports that the adoption effects of the proposed standard will be immaterial; second, the standard may have a deleterious effect on established regulatory rate-making relationships by changing the basis for consumer rates; and third, the analysis suggests that some firms will be faced with either requesting rate increases or jeopardizing their eligibility for special regulatory accounting treatment. Any of these outcomes create potentially severe problems in an industry on the brink of monumental economic and structural change, that is, the transition from a regulated monopoly to competition.


Author(s):  
Diletta Colette Invernizzi ◽  
Giorgio Locatelli ◽  
Naomi J. Brookes ◽  
Martin Grey

Project management literature has, until now, mainly focused on new build and only in the last decades the issues of decommissioning (mega) projects has arisen. To respond to this changing environment, project management will need to understand the challenges of decommissioning projects. Decommissioning projects within Oil & Gas, Chemical and Nuclear sectors are characterized by high costs, long schedules and uncertainty-based risks. The budget for Nuclear Decommissioning Projects and Programmes (NDPs) are subject to well publicized increases and, due to their relatively recent emergence, complexity and variety, key stakeholders lack a full understanding of the key factors influencing these increases. Benchmarking involves “comparing actual or planned practices [...] to identify best practices, generate ideas for improvement” [1] and offers significant potential to improve the performance of project selection, planning and delivery. However, even if benchmarking is the envisaged methodology to investigate the NDPs characteristics that impact on the NDPs performance, until now, it has only been partially used and there is a huge gap in the literature concerning benchmarking NDPs. This paper adapts a top-down benchmarking approach to highlight the NDPs characteristics that mostly impact on the NDPs performance. This is exemplified by a systematic quantitative and qualitative cross-comparison of two major “similar-but-different” NDPs: Rocky Flats (US) and Sellafield (UK). Main results concern the understanding of the alternatives of the owner and/or the contractors in relation to (1) the physical characteristics and the end state of the nuclear site, (2) the governance, funding & contracting schemes, and (3) the stakeholders’ engagement.


Author(s):  
Zhiping Chai ◽  
Xingxing Ke ◽  
Han Chen ◽  
Jiaqi Zhu ◽  
Haochen Yong ◽  
...  

Energy Policy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 226-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebekka Volk ◽  
Felix Hübner ◽  
Tobias Hünlich ◽  
Frank Schultmann

Author(s):  
M D'Amico ◽  
O Dufaud ◽  
L Perrin ◽  
S Trélat ◽  
J Latché

Author(s):  
Steve Thomas

- UK electricity consumers have paid provisions for decommissioning since before 1980 but by 2002, there were still negligible funds available to pay for decommissioning civil nuclear facilities. By then, the two major UK nuclear companies, British Energy and British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), were both effectively bankrupt. This paper examines: the pre-2002 provisions for decommissioning and how they were lost; the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a new public body which took over ownership of BNFL's facilities including the duty to manage their decommissioning and how it expects to carry out and fund decommissioning of its sites; how the re-launched British Energy will contribute to decommissioning its eight plants; and government plans for collecting decommissioning provisions for any new plants.JEL classifications: L50, L38, H23, H44, L71Key words: Nuclear power, decommissioning cost, funding and polluter pays.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document