3 ms·
They 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 noth
by realusername 5y ago
They 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