3 ms·

Modern plants don't need to be decommissioned. All parts are fully replaceable. Additionally, the point about maintaining older reactors isn't entirely releva

Modern plants don't need to be decommissioned. All parts are fully replaceable. Additionally, the point about maintaining older reactors isn't entirely relevant if we are talking about building new ones. With regards to capital construction costs, there are a number of factors in western countries that seem to drive up costs, and there is a lot of debate around the relative impact of unnecessary litigation that delays project construction, and the enforcement of safety regulations that were designed for older reactors. There is no arguing which energy source China is investing in most - they have approximately 25 reactors under construction right now.

GuB-42 8y ago
> Modern plants don't need to be decommissioned. All parts are fully replaceable. Additionally, the point about maintaining older reactors isn't entirely relevant if we are talking about building new ones. That was my point. You can either extend the life of reactors almost indefinitely, which is very expensive. Or you can build new ones, which is also very expensive. I heard that new reactors are indeed easier to maintain but to what extent? When every part becomes a radioactive mess, it may be a better idea to properly decommission the plant and build a new one with new technology rather than to change every single part, even if it is possible. There will be a point where it will happen, and it will be expensive, and hopefully, properly budgeted. Politics certainly play a role in the costs but the plant itself is inherently expensive. For example, the reactor vessel is single 500 tonne part made of a special kind of stainless steel. In fact every part inside the reactor has to be designed to resist radiation. And of course, the safety requirements are huge. I think the EPR has 4 different cooling systems, for redundancy and to avoid having to deal with another Fukushima disaster. As for China, AFAIK, not only they are investing a lot in nuclear power, but they are very good at it.

GuB-42 8y ago

> Modern plants don't need to be decommissioned. All parts are fully replaceable. Additionally, the point about maintaining older reactors isn't entirely relevant if we are talking about building new ones. That was my point. You can either extend the life of reactors almost indefinitely, which is very expensive. Or you can build new ones, which is also very expensive. I heard that new reactors are indeed easier to maintain but to what extent? When every part becomes a radioactive mess, it may be a better idea to properly decommission the plant and build a new one with new technology rather than to change every single part, even if it is possible. There will be a point where it will happen, and it will be expensive, and hopefully, properly budgeted. Politics certainly play a role in the costs but the plant itself is inherently expensive. For example, the reactor vessel is single 500 tonne part made of a special kind of stainless steel. In fact every part inside the reactor has to be designed to resist radiation. And of course, the safety requirements are huge. I think the EPR has 4 different cooling systems, for redundancy and to avoid having to deal with another Fukushima disaster. As for China, AFAIK, not only they are investing a lot in nuclear power, but they are very good at it.