4 ms·

Couldn’t it mean that closed down reactors, such as those at Barsebäck, could potentially re-open at some time in the future (after restoration, testing, etc.)?

by dybber 3y ago

troupo 3y ago
IIRC you can't just re-open a stopped nuclear reactor. You have to fully rebuild one from scratch.
- _nalply 3y ago
  s/stopped/closed down/ but yeah.
- Maakuth 3y ago
  It's technically not quite that way, shutting down a nuclear reactor doesn't destroy it like a blast furnace. However it might be practically true after a couple of years. The institutional knowledge is gone, many moving parts degraded due to stillness. And also a lot of relicensing to do. That must be way harder for a plant that's not currently operational.
  - troupo 3y ago
    There's also a good discussion here: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/7394/why-does-it-take-so-long-to-restart-a-nuclear-power-plant https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/7394/why-doe...
fifilura 3y ago
Barsebäck was closed down almost 20 years ago. There is not much to re-use there. There may be something to salvave at Ringhals but not worth it more than for sentinental reasons. It would be like renovating a 50yo veteran car. Maybe fun for someone but not worth the effort. That was also one of the main reasons it was closed down. It was simply reaching its end of life and required a major overhaul that neither government or owners were willing to invest.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > There may be something to salvave at Ringhals but not worth it more than for sentinental reasons. Not sure what Barsebäck or Ringhals are, but one valuable asset of former production sites of any type is their connexion to the grid. Considering many European countries have years of waiting for new production to be connected to the grid, that's not a small benefit.
  - fifilura 3y ago
    That is true. Barsebäck has a problem though that its closest city is - Copenhagen. The danes were never to fond of having a nuclear power plant that benefited another country close to their capital. Ringhals still has a couple of reactors running, so to can easily be expanded. But Finland had that too but still it took 15 years to build a new reactor.
pastage 3y ago
Since Barsebäck is one of the only sites you are allowed to built nuclear plants on it is a high on the list of places where a new plant would be built. IF you want it built fast.
kramerger 3y ago
I might be wrong, but I belive that one was already reaching its end of life. "Restarting Barseback will solve our energy crisis" is as practical as saying "to solve UKs problems, let's bring back Churchill from the dead"

Couldn’t it mean that closed down reactors, such as those at Barsebäck, could potentially re-open at some time in the future (after restoration, testing, etc.)?

by dybber 3y ago

Couldn’t it mean that closed down reactors, such as those at Barsebäck, could potentially re-open at some time in the future (after restoration, testing, etc.)?

troupo 3y ago

IIRC you can't just re-open a stopped nuclear reactor. You have to fully rebuild one from scratch.

_nalply 3y ago
s/stopped/closed down/ but yeah.
Maakuth 3y ago
It's technically not quite that way, shutting down a nuclear reactor doesn't destroy it like a blast furnace. However it might be practically true after a couple of years. The institutional knowledge is gone, many moving parts degraded due to stillness. And also a lot of relicensing to do. That must be way harder for a plant that's not currently operational.
- troupo 3y ago
  There's also a good discussion here: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/7394/why-does-it-take-so-long-to-restart-a-nuclear-power-plant https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/7394/why-doe...

fifilura 3y ago

Barsebäck was closed down almost 20 years ago. There is not much to re-use there. There may be something to salvave at Ringhals but not worth it more than for sentinental reasons. It would be like renovating a 50yo veteran car. Maybe fun for someone but not worth the effort. That was also one of the main reasons it was closed down. It was simply reaching its end of life and required a major overhaul that neither government or owners were willing to invest.

pyrale 3y ago
> There may be something to salvave at Ringhals but not worth it more than for sentinental reasons. Not sure what Barsebäck or Ringhals are, but one valuable asset of former production sites of any type is their connexion to the grid. Considering many European countries have years of waiting for new production to be connected to the grid, that's not a small benefit.
- fifilura 3y ago
  That is true. Barsebäck has a problem though that its closest city is - Copenhagen. The danes were never to fond of having a nuclear power plant that benefited another country close to their capital. Ringhals still has a couple of reactors running, so to can easily be expanded. But Finland had that too but still it took 15 years to build a new reactor.

pastage 3y ago

Since Barsebäck is one of the only sites you are allowed to built nuclear plants on it is a high on the list of places where a new plant would be built. IF you want it built fast.

kramerger 3y ago

I might be wrong, but I belive that one was already reaching its end of life. "Restarting Barseback will solve our energy crisis" is as practical as saying "to solve UKs problems, let's bring back Churchill from the dead"