3 ms·
>Japan will also change the rule that limits the operating life of reactors basically to 40 years but tolerates an extension to up to 60 years upon regulatory a
by snvzz 4y ago
>Japan will also change the rule that limits the operating life of reactors basically to 40 years but tolerates an extension to up to 60 years upon regulatory approval.
>Under the plan, Japan will allow power companies to operate reactors beyond the 60-year limit by excluding periods when reactors are halted for safety inspections or other reasons.
In short, instead of running more modern, more safe nuclear power plants, the plan is to extend the life of dangerous old designs.
Horror.
- mkj 4y agoIt's not "instead of". The sentence before your quote says they're building next generation reactors.
- snvzz 4y agoBut what's the incentive, if they can keep running the old ones up to 40 years and beyond?
- melling 4y agoHow dangerous are the current nuclear plants? Also, it appears that you are lying through omission: “The basic plan calls for building next-generation nuclear reactors to replace decommissioned ones within the premises of the nuclear plants, ending a freeze on any projects to add, expand or replace reactors.”
- snvzz 4y agoRefer to Fukushima (referenced in other posts) for an example behavior of older vs newer reactors when exposed to the same crisis.
- arp242 4y agoFukushima was 40 years old at the time of the accident, and did quite well all things considering.
- snvzz 4y agoThe one that melted up was just months away from being shut down forever. The newer ones didn't melt up. This example supports my point of view: Old reactors should be decommissioned, not life-extended.