4 ms·
> Afaik originally the life-span for most reactors of that kind was 40 years It is not. That number was made so that EDF would get a proper return of investmen
by steeve 6y ago
> Afaik originally the life-span for most reactors of that kind was 40 years
It is not. That number was made so that EDF would get a proper return of investment. Some plants based on the same design have been granted lifespan to 60 years in the US.
> how far past that are we willing to go?
As long as its safe. Why throw away something that works, is safe and reliable on the counts that some folks put out a number?
- IAmEveryone 6y agoI'm not quite willing to accept the US' ideas on science and safety as entirely unassailable at the moment. Nor, for that matter, should the most lenient regulation always dictate other countries'. That could just result in endless ping-pong of extensions, and it make lobbying so much easier if you only needed to convince one country and then shame all others into following.
- dv_dt 6y agoIn the US upgrades of old plants in the US have gone wrong. e.g. see the San Onofre upgrade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Plant_closure,_June_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...
- steeve 6y agoThere are multiple differences why it’s not the same in France. The biggest one being that in the US, a plant as to confirm to its design security specifications, whereas it France, it has to conform to the security specifications of when it is inspected.
- p4bl0 6y agoHow can anyone call nuclear power "safe"? Have we discovered a way to actually deal with the nuclear waste yet?