3 ms·

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-... https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nuclear-reactors-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nu... https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva... https://minedocs.com/20/Inkai_Operation_TR_12312016.pdf https://minedocs.com/20/Inkai_Operation_TR_12312016.pdf https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w Everything the nuclear propaganda arm ever says is a lie.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
New reactors are widely expected last longer than old ones because of what we've learned from the experience. Materials have advanced. Welding is better understood. Stress corrosion cracking can be managed. Your links are backward looking. I'm talking about the future. Many license extensions out to 60 years have been made, and many to 80 are expected. Youre doing the equivalent of looking at 1960s era solar tech and saying people claiming it can improve are liars.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Not even slightly. Because most of the reactors that shut down at 0-30 years were claimed to last at least 40. Credulously believing the same lie again is just stupid. Especially when they are already uneconomic to run. All you are doing is wasting resources on stranded assets.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-US-plant-licensed-for-80-year-operation https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-US-plant-lice... https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/app... https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re... https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-reactor-license-renewal.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/f... https://www.nei.org/advocacy/preserve-nuclear-plants/second-license-renewal https://www.nei.org/advocacy/preserve-nuclear-plants/second-...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You're now trying to pretend that having a few reactors extended (after expensive work which costs roughly as much as replacing them) means they don't typically shut down long before planned (usually after running at a huge loss for a decade or so). It's exactly the same lie again. Paying $15/W now *and then* $30/MWh on top *and then* having an option of paying $1-2/W later isn't somehow superior to paying $2/W for an equivalent amount of power now and amortising it at $24-40/MWh and then using the 80% of money left over for storage or whatever you please. If you're worried about your solar farm 60 years in the future simply repower 15% of them every time you would refuel the nuclear plant for less money than the fuel would cost. https://heated.world/p/big-oils-favorite-way-to-lie-paltering https://heated.world/p/big-oils-favorite-way-to-lie-palterin...

acidburnNSA 4y ago

New reactors are widely expected last longer than old ones because of what we've learned from the experience. Materials have advanced. Welding is better understood. Stress corrosion cracking can be managed. Your links are backward looking. I'm talking about the future. Many license extensions out to 60 years have been made, and many to 80 are expected. Youre doing the equivalent of looking at 1960s era solar tech and saying people claiming it can improve are liars.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Not even slightly. Because most of the reactors that shut down at 0-30 years were claimed to last at least 40. Credulously believing the same lie again is just stupid. Especially when they are already uneconomic to run. All you are doing is wasting resources on stranded assets.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-US-plant-licensed-for-80-year-operation https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-US-plant-lice... https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/app... https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re... https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-reactor-license-renewal.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/f... https://www.nei.org/advocacy/preserve-nuclear-plants/second-license-renewal https://www.nei.org/advocacy/preserve-nuclear-plants/second-...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You're now trying to pretend that having a few reactors extended (after expensive work which costs roughly as much as replacing them) means they don't typically shut down long before planned (usually after running at a huge loss for a decade or so). It's exactly the same lie again. Paying $15/W now *and then* $30/MWh on top *and then* having an option of paying $1-2/W later isn't somehow superior to paying $2/W for an equivalent amount of power now and amortising it at $24-40/MWh and then using the 80% of money left over for storage or whatever you please. If you're worried about your solar farm 60 years in the future simply repower 15% of them every time you would refuel the nuclear plant for less money than the fuel would cost. https://heated.world/p/big-oils-favorite-way-to-lie-paltering https://heated.world/p/big-oils-favorite-way-to-lie-palterin...