3 ms·

they have an EOL for a reason...

Kuinox 5y ago
If you changed every part of a boat, does the original EOL of the boat still make sense ? Yes there are unremplacable parts in a nuclear reactor, but if it's measured to be safe to continue, then there is no reason to respect the initial EOL.
- afterburner 5y ago
  Corners get cut on refurbishment, for political reasons, and the facility continues to degrade while their life is too far extended. Fukushima had this issue.
  - mjevans 5y ago
    Fukushima's main issue is related to attempts to 'save face'. International aid for cooling water and power (for cooling/etc) was offered, and rejected, despite the basement diesel generators being flooded by the tsunami that resulted from the earthquake. Realistically the plant was built somewhere they shouldn't have placed it, and the safety systems should have been retrofitted with additional raised systems once the risk was properly understood.
  - dantheman 5y ago
    ... hit by a tidal wave.
    - afterburner 5y ago
      Well, if they knew the location was a risk, instead of extending its life, they could have shut it down. But they chose to extend it.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    The problem at Fukushima Daiichi was not refurbishment problems: it was the fact that the emergency batteries and generators were in the basement and accessible from the sea-facing side of the structure. Fukushima Daini did not have those problems, and thus not much drama happened at it: * https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-flood-damage-to-emergency-diesel-generators-for-Fukushima-Daiichi-and-Daini_fig2_267581947 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-flood-dama... * https://hbr.org/2014/07/how-the-other-fukushima-plant-survived https://hbr.org/2014/07/how-the-other-fukushima-plant-surviv... The two plants are 12 km apart and got hit with the same tsunami.
    - afterburner 5y ago
      Well, if they knew the location was a risk, instead of extending its life, they could have shut it down. But they chose to extend it.
- justatdotin 5y ago
  yeah it's getting a bit beyond my knowledge: maybe take your interesting ideas to the licensers and insurers
smoe 5y ago
One of the oldest nuclear power plant in operation worldwide is Beznau in Switzerland, which has been running since 1969. It is currently scheduled to start shutting down in 2030 which will then take 10-15 years. The other plants are scheduled to start that processes in 2040-45. So unlike Germany they are not at a point of no return yet and according to Wikipedia that type of plant could potentially extend their lifespan to 80 years instead of 60. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant In don't know the situation in all of Europe, but there could be potential to buy us quite of lot of time to really ramp up alternatives.

If you changed every part of a boat, does the original EOL of the boat still make sense ? Yes there are unremplacable parts in a nuclear reactor, but if it's measured to be safe to continue, then there is no reason to respect the initial EOL.

afterburner 5y ago
Corners get cut on refurbishment, for political reasons, and the facility continues to degrade while their life is too far extended. Fukushima had this issue.
- mjevans 5y ago
  Fukushima's main issue is related to attempts to 'save face'. International aid for cooling water and power (for cooling/etc) was offered, and rejected, despite the basement diesel generators being flooded by the tsunami that resulted from the earthquake. Realistically the plant was built somewhere they shouldn't have placed it, and the safety systems should have been retrofitted with additional raised systems once the risk was properly understood.
- dantheman 5y ago
  ... hit by a tidal wave.
  - afterburner 5y ago
    Well, if they knew the location was a risk, instead of extending its life, they could have shut it down. But they chose to extend it.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  The problem at Fukushima Daiichi was not refurbishment problems: it was the fact that the emergency batteries and generators were in the basement and accessible from the sea-facing side of the structure. Fukushima Daini did not have those problems, and thus not much drama happened at it: * https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-flood-damage-to-emergency-diesel-generators-for-Fukushima-Daiichi-and-Daini_fig2_267581947 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-flood-dama... * https://hbr.org/2014/07/how-the-other-fukushima-plant-survived https://hbr.org/2014/07/how-the-other-fukushima-plant-surviv... The two plants are 12 km apart and got hit with the same tsunami.
  - afterburner 5y ago
    Well, if they knew the location was a risk, instead of extending its life, they could have shut it down. But they chose to extend it.
justatdotin 5y ago
yeah it's getting a bit beyond my knowledge: maybe take your interesting ideas to the licensers and insurers

smoe 5y ago

One of the oldest nuclear power plant in operation worldwide is Beznau in Switzerland, which has been running since 1969. It is currently scheduled to start shutting down in 2030 which will then take 10-15 years. The other plants are scheduled to start that processes in 2040-45. So unlike Germany they are not at a point of no return yet and according to Wikipedia that type of plant could potentially extend their lifespan to 80 years instead of 60. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant In don't know the situation in all of Europe, but there could be potential to buy us quite of lot of time to really ramp up alternatives.