Implementation of NPP–1200 Nuclear Megaprojects Abroad Using Preferential Rules of Flow Construction
Implementation of NPP–1200 Nuclear Megaprojects Abroad Using Preferential Rules of Flow Construction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22337/2073-8412-2024-1-55-62Keywords:
NPP–1200 construction flows, on-site preparatory works, critical path, preference rules, installation methods, different options of construction organizationAbstract
The construction of an individual project or a complex is characterized by a number of interrelated factors, which are determined by the technological, volumetric and design characteristics of the construction process, as well as by planning, financial, organizational and technical conditions.
The optimal construction of objects and complexes is based on the organization of all processes in optimal terms, taking into account perfect technology and mechanization with a rational combination of construction, installation and commissioning works, ensuring minimum cost of construction. The optimal variant of construction of nuclear power facilities is selected by comparing a number of variants that differ in the means of mechanization and technology used for certain types of works, duration of construction and assembly works, start and end dates of works, method of construction of facilities, technological sequence of works, degree of combination of construction and assembly and commissioning works, and applied methods of works production.
The experience of design and construction of start-up complexes shows that in the construction of industrial facilities, on-site preparatory and main construction and installation works are performed sequentially. According to the requirements of the norms for the preparatory works, the capital investments are mainly planned to be distributed evenly, which is irrational, as it leads to a decrease in their efficiency and delays the construction period.
In the course of preparatory works at the site, the character of the distribution of capital investments by time periods can be different.
As the practice of NPP construction shows, in case of combined sequential execution of preparatory and main construction and installation works at the site, the following options are possible: 1) less intensive accumulation of volumes at the beginning of the preparation; 2) equal distribution of capital investments over the whole preparation (if preparatory and main works are performed sequentially); 3) accelerated accumulation in the middle part and deceleration of this process at the end of the preparation, or more intensive accumulation of volumes at the beginning and deceleration of this process in the middle and at the end of the preparation (if preparatory and main works are combined).
When considering the possible combinations of preparatory and main construction and installation works, it is necessary to take into account the reduction of the total construction period of the nuclear power complex both due to the combination of the preparatory works among themselves and due to their combination with the main works.
References
Chapman R. J. The controlling influences on effective risk identification and assessment for construction design management // International Journal of Project Management. 2001. Vol. 19. Issue 3. Pp. 147–160. DOI: 10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00070-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00070-8
Komanoff C. Power plant cost escalation: nuclear and coal capital costs, regulation, and economics. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc, 1982. 323 p.
Harris G., Heptonstall P., Gross R., Handley D. Cost estimates for nuclear power in the UK // EnergyPolicy. 2013. Vol. 62. Pp. 431–442. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.116 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.116
Ramanathan C., Narayanan S. P., Idrus A. B. Construction delays causing risks on time and cost – a critical review // Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building. 2012. Vol. 12. Issue 1. Рр. 37–57. DOI: 10.5130/ajceb.v12i1.2330 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v12i1.2330
Соловьева А. П., Харитонов В. В., Шмаков О. Г. Влияние задержек в строительстве АЭС на эффективность инвестиций // Известия высших учебных заведений. Ядерная энергетика. 2018. № 3. C. 52–62. DOI: 10.26583/npe.2018.3.05 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26583/npe.2018.3.05
Карпенко Е. М. Потенциал производственной системы: методология формирования, экономическая оценка, эффективность использования : автореф. дис. … д-ра экон. наук. Минск, 2010. 52 с.
Сезёмин Д. Е. Международный атомно-энергетический проект как драйвер комплексного инфраструктурного развития новых территорий с агломерацией жилой и промышленной застройки // Недвижимость: экономика, управление. 2023. № 3 (Приложение). C. 138–142.
Бронз П. В. Разработка методов оценки экономической эффективности инвестиционных проектов электростанций по интервальным данным : автореф. дис. … канд. экон. наук. М., 2007. 16 с.
Сезёмин Д. Е. Комплексное развитие незастроенных территорий. Опыт строительства АЭС «Аккую» ГК «Росатом» (Турция) // Жилье и городская среда : нац. науч.-практ. конф. с междунар. участием (в смешанном формате) (г. Москва, 20–21 октября 2022 г.).
Локтионов В. И. Оценка рисков в предпринимательстве при анализе эффективности крупномасштабных проектов в топливно-энергетическом комплексе : автореф. дис. … канд. экон. наук. Иркутск, 2011. 20 с.
Елисеев Е. Ю. Формирование рациональных организационных структур инвестиционных проектов по строительству атомных электростанций : автореф. дис. … канд. экон. наук. М., 2007. 19 с.
Reza A., Azari K., Mousavi N., Mousavi S. F., Hosseini S. B. Risk assessment model selection in construction industry // Expert Systems with Applications. 2011. Vol. 38. Pp. 9105–9111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.110
