• qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    181
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    For the love of everything, at least let’s stop decommissioning serviceable nuclear plants.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My understanding is that they eventually become unserviceable as they age, because of mechanical/structular reasons, or because the costs of servicing them is so prohibitive that they are unserviceable econimically.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Buildings and machinery fatigue and wear out over time.

          And highly critical uptime devices and buildings need extra maintenance and upkeep.

          Old sites need to be decommissioned. Even if you ignore the financial costs in the upkeep at some point they just fatigue to the point of needing to be replaced.

          I’m not anti-nuclear, all I’m saying is if you want nuclear you have to build new sites, you can’t keep the old sites going forever.

          • supercriticalcheese@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Rotating equipment are replaceable is not that much of an issue they operate on regular steam.

            Buildings are reinforced concrete unlikely to be a concern not in a reasonable timeframe unless rebars corrode for some reason.

            Issue would be items operating with water directly in contact with the reactor, so critical piping, heat exchangers and reactor vessels, which I can’t say I am an expert specifically for nuclear plants.

            I imagine the main concern would be the reactor itself as all reat can be replaced.

      • havokdj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is what taxes are for. God forbid government officials have to cut into their overinflated bonuses to keep a major source of energy in service.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even if you ignore capitalism, at some point they fatigue and break to the point where they cannot be repaired, but need to be replaced.

          • havokdj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t have to demo a whole building to replace a machine. When they need to be replaced, replace it.

            Money is literally the only excuse here. Greed is what prevents us from advancing, it’s the reason we never switched from coal and why we are likely not going to last another 100 years. The old rich fuckers don’t care, they aren’t going to live that long anyways, and their children are going to be rich enough that even their descendants 10 generations from now will live comfortably in the hell we are turning the planet into.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Disproven by Russia. Maybe sometimes core is replaced because it uses unsafe design by current standards like in St. Petesburg.