5 ms·

They have an engineered lifespan and things start falling apart and becoming dangerous when you exceed that. Many should never have been extended. They've had

They have an engineered lifespan and things start falling apart and becoming dangerous when you exceed that. Many should never have been extended. They've had to change safety tests and infrastructure tests so the order plans would pass inspection. This has always been my concern with nuclear. Yes we can make it safe, but the human greed factor is always the weak point. Regulations weakened, automated systems bypassed, skimping on design decisions, etc.

tekla 4y ago
> Many should never have been extended. Which ones.
wnevets 4y ago
> This has always been my concern with nuclear. Yes we can make it safe, but the human greed factor is always the weak point. Regulations weakened, automated systems bypassed, skimping on design decisions, etc. This is exactly my concern. Fukushima was only a problem because the company didn't want to spend money putting in backup generators in the correct place despite repeated warnings to do so.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  There has been more near misses in the nuclear industry than tsunamis. After Fukushima about all plants in the west had to install independent core cooling because the regulators realized the risk was systemic, even though the cause was special. A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 when many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J...
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    Fukushima had trouble with the backup coolant systems. One reactor had the isolation condenser fail. Unlike US plants, where the isolation condenser is regularly tested, they had never tested it so they didn't know what it sounded like when it was in operation (you couldn't miss it!) they didn't realize it wasn't working. They tried to cool another reactor by pumping in water from fire trucks and found that the water didn't go where it was supposed to go, it took quite a few months of work to really understand the path it went through.
  - kranke155 4y ago
    Nuclear feels a bit like having a loaded gun in your home in an unsafe neighbourhood. You feel safer but there’s a lot of risk - accidental suicide, etc.
  - nl 4y ago
    To expand on this, nuclear risk is significantly underestimated: > Despite significant reforms following past disasters, we estimate that, with 388 reactors in operation, there is a 50% chance that a Fukushima event (or more costly) occurs every 60–150 years. We also find that the average cost of events per year is around the cost of the construction of a new plant. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629615301067?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961...
    - belorn 4y ago
      One nuclear accident every 60–150 years seems pretty fine compared to the estimated risk of global warming from fossil fueled power plants. It seems similar to the added risk of battery fire in electric cars compared to continuing using IC cars. If we can replace existing nuclear plants with exclusively using renewable and storage then that should naturally be considered, but accident rate of nuclear plants should not be considered in places where the current or future alternative is burning fossil fuels.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    > near misses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station#2002_reactor_head_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Po... And that was just the 5th worst nuclear incident in the US since 1979!
- hanniabu 4y ago
  Since we're sharing, this first link makes me absolutely furious. There's too much to quote from here, but here's just one excerpt. The post has numerous examples of very concerning issues. > When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 > The proposal comes as most of the nation’s nuclear power plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating licenses. Many plant operators have sought licenses to extend the operating life of their plants past the original deadlines, even as experts have warned that aging plants come with heightened concerns about safety. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspection-weakening.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspe... > The nuclear industry is also pushing the NRC to cut down on safety inspections and rely instead on plants to police themselves. The NRC “is listening” to this advice, the Associated Press reported last month. “Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting this week that she was ‘open to self-assessments’ by nuclear plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by operators take the place of some NRC inspections.” https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-trump-also-letting-nuclear-plants-regulate-safety https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-tru...
belorn 4y ago
The only way I see that the decision to exceed the expected life time was a bad decision is if they could have replaced it with an other non-fossil fuel solution. The problem is indeed human greed. Even with the accidents that have occurred, I am still glad that people did historically run with the risk over burning even more fossil fuels. My concern over pollution, especially global warming, is far greater than my concerns over nuclear accidents.
_n_b_ 4y ago
> They've had to change safety tests and infrastructure tests so the order plans would pass inspection. It's interesting to square this sentiment with the people a few comments away claiming that over-regulation is killing this industry. (Working in nuclear, I find neither sentiment particularly true nor totally false.)
blooalien 4y ago
> "Yes we can make it safe, but the human greed factor is always the weak point. Regulations weakened, automated systems bypassed, skimping on design decisions, etc." This has always been my concern with "civilization" in general, especially now that we've passed the 8 billion people mark… Human greed is a dangerous enough factor on it's own, but at the scale it's practiced today? Just plain terrifying.

tekla 4y ago

> Many should never have been extended. Which ones.

wnevets 4y ago

> This has always been my concern with nuclear. Yes we can make it safe, but the human greed factor is always the weak point. Regulations weakened, automated systems bypassed, skimping on design decisions, etc. This is exactly my concern. Fukushima was only a problem because the company didn't want to spend money putting in backup generators in the correct place despite repeated warnings to do so.

Gwypaas 4y ago
There has been more near misses in the nuclear industry than tsunamis. After Fukushima about all plants in the west had to install independent core cooling because the regulators realized the risk was systemic, even though the cause was special. A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 when many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J...
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  Fukushima had trouble with the backup coolant systems. One reactor had the isolation condenser fail. Unlike US plants, where the isolation condenser is regularly tested, they had never tested it so they didn't know what it sounded like when it was in operation (you couldn't miss it!) they didn't realize it wasn't working. They tried to cool another reactor by pumping in water from fire trucks and found that the water didn't go where it was supposed to go, it took quite a few months of work to really understand the path it went through.
- kranke155 4y ago
  Nuclear feels a bit like having a loaded gun in your home in an unsafe neighbourhood. You feel safer but there’s a lot of risk - accidental suicide, etc.
- nl 4y ago
  To expand on this, nuclear risk is significantly underestimated: > Despite significant reforms following past disasters, we estimate that, with 388 reactors in operation, there is a 50% chance that a Fukushima event (or more costly) occurs every 60–150 years. We also find that the average cost of events per year is around the cost of the construction of a new plant. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629615301067?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961...
  - belorn 4y ago
    One nuclear accident every 60–150 years seems pretty fine compared to the estimated risk of global warming from fossil fueled power plants. It seems similar to the added risk of battery fire in electric cars compared to continuing using IC cars. If we can replace existing nuclear plants with exclusively using renewable and storage then that should naturally be considered, but accident rate of nuclear plants should not be considered in places where the current or future alternative is burning fossil fuels.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  > near misses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station#2002_reactor_head_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Po... And that was just the 5th worst nuclear incident in the US since 1979!
hanniabu 4y ago
Since we're sharing, this first link makes me absolutely furious. There's too much to quote from here, but here's just one excerpt. The post has numerous examples of very concerning issues. > When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 > The proposal comes as most of the nation’s nuclear power plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating licenses. Many plant operators have sought licenses to extend the operating life of their plants past the original deadlines, even as experts have warned that aging plants come with heightened concerns about safety. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspection-weakening.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspe... > The nuclear industry is also pushing the NRC to cut down on safety inspections and rely instead on plants to police themselves. The NRC “is listening” to this advice, the Associated Press reported last month. “Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting this week that she was ‘open to self-assessments’ by nuclear plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by operators take the place of some NRC inspections.” https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-trump-also-letting-nuclear-plants-regulate-safety https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-tru...

belorn 4y ago

The only way I see that the decision to exceed the expected life time was a bad decision is if they could have replaced it with an other non-fossil fuel solution. The problem is indeed human greed. Even with the accidents that have occurred, I am still glad that people did historically run with the risk over burning even more fossil fuels. My concern over pollution, especially global warming, is far greater than my concerns over nuclear accidents.

_n_b_ 4y ago

> They've had to change safety tests and infrastructure tests so the order plans would pass inspection. It's interesting to square this sentiment with the people a few comments away claiming that over-regulation is killing this industry. (Working in nuclear, I find neither sentiment particularly true nor totally false.)

blooalien 4y ago

> "Yes we can make it safe, but the human greed factor is always the weak point. Regulations weakened, automated systems bypassed, skimping on design decisions, etc." This has always been my concern with "civilization" in general, especially now that we've passed the 8 billion people mark… Human greed is a dangerous enough factor on it's own, but at the scale it's practiced today? Just plain terrifying.