3 ms·
But OP isn't talking about newly-built plants. OP is doing what many pro-nuclear folks do, which is to posit a counterfactual history where we built dozens (hun
by teachrdan 5y ago
But OP isn't talking about newly-built plants. OP is doing what many pro-nuclear folks do, which is to posit a counterfactual history where we built dozens (hundreds?) of nuclear plants in the 70s. That would leave us with many, many obsolete nuclear plants reaching the end of their intended lifespan all at once over the last few years. (Nuclear plants were typically permitted to operate for 40 years, although may have successfully applied for extensions and continue to run today.)
- realusername 5y agoThey were not "permitted" to run 40 years, they were planned for at least 40 years, that's completely different. Any time extension is a tradeoff, there's nothing wrong with extending the lifespan if the regulators are okay with it.
- teachrdan 5y agoIt looks like I was imprecise with my language. It looks like plants are licensed for 40 years. Extensions are for an additional 20 years. (!) > there's nothing wrong with extending the lifespan if the regulators are okay with it. Perhaps! Unless regulators make a mistake, or are pressured politically or by industry to extend licenses when they ought not be. I'm not sure I'd want to go into a hypothetical 2030s where the US had scores of nuclear power plants to decommission two decades after the end of their original lifespan. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=21 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=21