2 ms·
Up front, I have zero knowledge of Diablo Canyon, so this is a general comment... If you've got a site with a certain risk of disaster and you extend a plant's
by jpollock 3y ago
Up front, I have zero knowledge of Diablo Canyon, so this is a general comment...
If you've got a site with a certain risk of disaster and you extend a plant's useful life past the initial design lifetime, the risks may no longer be within initial expectations (e.g. X% chance of seeing a large earthquake in plant lifespan).
So, while the reactor may still be fine, the reactor + location may no longer be fine.
Some things that might affect the risk of extending the lifespan of the reactor:
1) A large earthquake may be overdue.
2) Sea level rise may put it at risk of flooding.
...
- credit_guy 3y agoYou are right. But... All nuclear power plants come under the oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And if you heard of Chernobyl and Fukushima and of earthquakes and floods, guess what, the NRC has heard of those too. And of 1000 other risk factors, and it keeps an eye on them. If the NRC decides to shut down a reactor, I'm fine with that. If politicians decide to do that, not so much. Sure, politicians will always say something that amounts to "think of the children", but they are just playing with your emotions. They are not better experts than the experts whose jobs is to regulate the power plants. In my state, NY, the politicians managed to shut down 2 reactors, claiming that they'll replace them with renewable sources. Shut them down they did, and replaced them with natural gas power plants they did too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center