21 ms·

Nuclear reactors are regularly maintained, tested and checked. When possible, old plants are upgraded to new safety standards. You can upgrade certain componen

Nuclear reactors are regularly maintained, tested and checked. When possible, old plants are upgraded to new safety standards. You can upgrade certain components, and safety systems. However things like the containment structure or pressure vessel can't be changed. You for example can't retrofit a core catcher, but you could improve the turbines, I think Steam Generators as well, replace PLC's, Tsunami proof your site by building a larger tsunami wall / making your backup generators flood proof...

cogman10 6mo ago
Right, and ultimately Japan has decided the safest and I assume cheapest route with these reactors wasn't to rebuild but rather to decommission. These reactors can be made safer, but they all still have a foundational design flaw which means the ultimate goal should be replacing rather than continually spending money reinforcing.
- leonidasrup 6mo ago
  On the contrary, Japan is changing it's energy policy and restarting it's nuclear reactors. "Japan’s Energy Plan: New Policy Shifts Nuclear Power Stance from Reduction to Maximization" https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01195/ https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01195/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/japan-prepares-restart-worlds-biggest-nuclear-plant-15-years-after-fukushima-2025-12-21/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
  - cogman10 6mo ago
    Hmm, I may have been too vague. When I stated "these" I was talking specifically about the Fukushima plants and not Japan's policy for reactors nationally. Are they planning on restarting the Fukushima plants? I didn't think they were.
    - mpweiher 6mo ago
      The Fukushima plants were completely destroyed by the meltdowns and subsequent Hydrogen explosions that were caused by the Tsunami. There was never any chance of "restarting" them, so not sure why you brought that up.
      - cogman10 6mo ago
        Because I'm confused at to what the > On the contrary was about. Contrary to what?
        mpweiher 6mo ago
        Contrary to your claim Japan is not shutting down its nuclear reactors. It is restarting them.
        cogman10 6mo ago
        Not a claim I made.
        snarkconjecture 6mo ago
        > These reactors can be made safer, but they all still have a foundational design flaw which means the ultimate goal should be replacing rather than continually spending money reinforcing. This was about the Fukushima reactors that were completely destroyed? In response to a discussion of Belgian reactors that are completely different?
    - Moldoteck 6mo ago
      Fukushima units were dismantled more from fear of public opinion. They could have operated unaffected units further safely with proper fixes
- pqtyw 6mo ago
  All nuclear reactors are massively safer than coal power plants though. If you excluded climate change and Co2 emissions entirely and measured harm/deaths adjusted by the amount of power generated the difference would be astronomical.
  - Ray20 6mo ago
    > measured harm/deaths adjusted by the amount of power generated In this case, we find that nuclear nuclear reactors are 2 orders of magnitude more dangerous than gas and coal power plants.
    - don_esteban 6mo ago
      do you account for all the air pollution and downstream health effects coal power plants cause?
  - ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
    Or you know, just build renewables and storage. Displace vastly more coal faster with a death per kWh where the only injuries comes from traditional construction and mechanical industry work. No need for any special casing.
    - FabHK 6mo ago
      > where the only injuries comes from traditional construction and mechanical industry work. Still count.
      - ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
        They do count, but look at it from a societal perspective. For the general public no harm can come their way. Unless they through some mechanical failure manage to walk underneath a wind turbine shedding or collapsing. Same with solar. Which is even less risky. For nuclear power the about all effects from a large scale failure will impact society through either radiation or life changing evacuations. And then society is on the hook to pay for the entire cleanup work. For renewables the only people who get harmed are those who work in the industry. The risk for the general public is zero.
Orygin 6mo ago
Belgium's reactors are really old, and have lots of issues. They have been dragging their feet for decades on the subject and instead of building new reactors 10-20 years ago, they are now un-decomissioning older reactors..
- throwaway2037 6mo ago
  > Belgium's reactors are really old, and have lots of issues. I want to point out that Belgium has the (global) gold standard of nuclear regulation. They have annual reviews, 5 year major reassessments, and 10 year Periodic Safety Review (PSR). The purpose of the PSR is to build a plan to keep all nuclear plants up-to-date with state of the art safety mechanisms. Each PSR has mandatory upgrades. If operators fail or refuse these upgrades, they are forced to shutdown. There is no one other country who does nuclear safety quite like Belgium.
- Moldoteck 6mo ago
  old!= bad. You fix stuff and you operate it safely. Running existing units for as long as possible is sensible.
wolvoleo 6mo ago
Those old reactors in Belgium have already had several issues.
WalterBright 6mo ago
... and add a pipe to vent the hydrogen gases outside instead of accumulating it inside the reactor building!

cogman10 6mo ago

Right, and ultimately Japan has decided the safest and I assume cheapest route with these reactors wasn't to rebuild but rather to decommission. These reactors can be made safer, but they all still have a foundational design flaw which means the ultimate goal should be replacing rather than continually spending money reinforcing.

leonidasrup 6mo ago
On the contrary, Japan is changing it's energy policy and restarting it's nuclear reactors. "Japan’s Energy Plan: New Policy Shifts Nuclear Power Stance from Reduction to Maximization" https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01195/ https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01195/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/japan-prepares-restart-worlds-biggest-nuclear-plant-15-years-after-fukushima-2025-12-21/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
- cogman10 6mo ago
  Hmm, I may have been too vague. When I stated "these" I was talking specifically about the Fukushima plants and not Japan's policy for reactors nationally. Are they planning on restarting the Fukushima plants? I didn't think they were.
  - mpweiher 6mo ago
    The Fukushima plants were completely destroyed by the meltdowns and subsequent Hydrogen explosions that were caused by the Tsunami. There was never any chance of "restarting" them, so not sure why you brought that up.
    - cogman10 6mo ago
      Because I'm confused at to what the > On the contrary was about. Contrary to what?
      - mpweiher 6mo ago
        Contrary to your claim Japan is not shutting down its nuclear reactors. It is restarting them.
        cogman10 6mo ago
        Not a claim I made.
        snarkconjecture 6mo ago
        > These reactors can be made safer, but they all still have a foundational design flaw which means the ultimate goal should be replacing rather than continually spending money reinforcing. This was about the Fukushima reactors that were completely destroyed? In response to a discussion of Belgian reactors that are completely different?
  - Moldoteck 6mo ago
    Fukushima units were dismantled more from fear of public opinion. They could have operated unaffected units further safely with proper fixes
pqtyw 6mo ago
All nuclear reactors are massively safer than coal power plants though. If you excluded climate change and Co2 emissions entirely and measured harm/deaths adjusted by the amount of power generated the difference would be astronomical.
- Ray20 6mo ago
  > measured harm/deaths adjusted by the amount of power generated In this case, we find that nuclear nuclear reactors are 2 orders of magnitude more dangerous than gas and coal power plants.
  - don_esteban 6mo ago
    do you account for all the air pollution and downstream health effects coal power plants cause?
- ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
  Or you know, just build renewables and storage. Displace vastly more coal faster with a death per kWh where the only injuries comes from traditional construction and mechanical industry work. No need for any special casing.
  - FabHK 6mo ago
    > where the only injuries comes from traditional construction and mechanical industry work. Still count.
    - ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
      They do count, but look at it from a societal perspective. For the general public no harm can come their way. Unless they through some mechanical failure manage to walk underneath a wind turbine shedding or collapsing. Same with solar. Which is even less risky. For nuclear power the about all effects from a large scale failure will impact society through either radiation or life changing evacuations. And then society is on the hook to pay for the entire cleanup work. For renewables the only people who get harmed are those who work in the industry. The risk for the general public is zero.

Orygin 6mo ago

Belgium's reactors are really old, and have lots of issues. They have been dragging their feet for decades on the subject and instead of building new reactors 10-20 years ago, they are now un-decomissioning older reactors..

throwaway2037 6mo ago
> Belgium's reactors are really old, and have lots of issues. I want to point out that Belgium has the (global) gold standard of nuclear regulation. They have annual reviews, 5 year major reassessments, and 10 year Periodic Safety Review (PSR). The purpose of the PSR is to build a plan to keep all nuclear plants up-to-date with state of the art safety mechanisms. Each PSR has mandatory upgrades. If operators fail or refuse these upgrades, they are forced to shutdown. There is no one other country who does nuclear safety quite like Belgium.
Moldoteck 6mo ago
old!= bad. You fix stuff and you operate it safely. Running existing units for as long as possible is sensible.

wolvoleo 6mo ago

Those old reactors in Belgium have already had several issues.

WalterBright 6mo ago

... and add a pipe to vent the hydrogen gases outside instead of accumulating it inside the reactor building!