4 ms·
I think we should be building nuclear everywhere, but it's important to realise the life of a nuclear power plant is between 20 to 40 years. https://www.iaea.o
by DanBC 6y ago
I think we should be building nuclear everywhere, but it's important to realise the life of a nuclear power plant is between 20 to 40 years.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf
> It is evident that the average age of power reactors in the IAEA's Member States is increasing. (See accompanying graphs.) By 2000, more than 50 nuclear plants will have been providing electricity for 25 years or longer. Most nuclear power plants have operating life-times of between 20 and 40 years.
> Ageing is defined as a continuing time-dependent degradation of material due to service conditions,including normal operation and transient conditions. It is common experience that over long periods of time, there is a gradual change in the properties of materials. These changes can affect the capability of engineered components, systems, or structures to perform their required function. Not all changes are deleterious, but it is commonly observed that ageing processes normally involve a gradual reduction in performance capability.
> All materials in a nuclear power plant can suffer from ageing and can partially or totally lose their designed function. Ageing is not only of concern for active components (for which the probability of malfunction increases with time) but also for passive ones, since the safety margin is being reduced towards the lowest allow-able level
- marcus_holmes 6y agoSurely the same aging effects also affect dams too, though?
- bregma 6y agoThe construction materials becoming brittle due to constant bombardment with nuclear emissions? Not noticeable in a hydroelectric dam. The materials becoming brittle and breaking down due to constant exposure to heat? Steam does not normally factor in hydroelectric production. Nuclear ages faster then thermoelectric, which ages faster than hydroelectric. It's a tradeoff.
- eeZah7Ux 6y agoNot at all.
- natch 6y agoThe aging effects are largely from radiation and heat.
- vertak 6y agoThis study is from 1987. Might it it be slightly outdated? This article from 2009 addresses the lower age estimates from the 1980’s era, saying reactors could last for 80 years or even more. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-pla...
- natch 6y agoIn theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. In practice, there is.
- wiz21c 6y agoFTA : "We think we can replace almost every component in a nuclear power plant," said Jan van der Lee, director of the Materials Ageing Institute (MAI), a nuclear research facility inaugurated this week in France and run by the state-owned nuclear giant EDF. EDF is state owned just as much as nuclear reactor construction company => I wouldn't trust that guy
- viraptor 6y agoThis is a bit of an edge case. Who else can you ask about the practicality of replacing reactors, other than people who replace reactors?
- i_am_proteus 6y agoThis study is strongly influenced by when nuclear reactors were built. Of course there aren't any 100-year-old nuclear plants; the technology isn't that old. Some components certainly do degrade due to use, but it's entirely feasible to reuse large portions of the old plant by replacing the components that have degraded.
- xyzzyz 6y ago> I think we should be building nuclear everywhere, but it's important to realise the life of a nuclear power plant is between 20 to 40 years. This is simply untrue. Just look at French fleet. 40 years is minimum of their planned lifetime, and they probably will be operated for 50 or maybe even 60 years.