My understanding is that they eventually become unserviceable as they age, because of mechanical/structular reasons, or because the costs of servicing them is so prohibitive that they are unserviceable economically.
That they definitely have a begin, middle, and end, life cycle.
Well other countries have and are doing done so. I really doubt that the reason is anything that politics.
Buildings and machinery fatigue and wear out over time.
And highly critical uptime devices and buildings need extra maintenance and upkeep.
Old sites need to be decommissioned. Even if you ignore the financial costs in the upkeep at some point they just fatigue to the point of needing to be replaced.
I'm not anti-nuclear, all I'm saying is if you want nuclear you have to build new sites, you can't keep the old sites going forever.
Rotating equipment are replaceable is not that much of an issue they operate on regular steam.
Buildings are reinforced concrete unlikely to be a concern not in a reasonable timeframe unless rebars corrode for some reason.
Issue would be items operating with water directly in contact with the reactor, so critical piping, heat exchangers and reactor vessels, which I can't say I am an expert specifically for nuclear plants.
I imagine the main concern would be the reactor itself as all reat can be replaced.
Not to argue minutia, as it doesn't take away from my correct point, but I was speaking specifically of the reactor and it's housing and the building around it. A reactor when it's built has a pre-planned age limit to it.
We can do calculations to evaluate them. If someone creates a fairly accurate or at least conservative stimulation of the reactor and housing, a mechanical engineer should be able to determine if it's still good for operation or needs replacement. They use ASME code and tables to do life fraction calculations.
Fair enough. This article basically covers both the points you are making, as well as the point that I am making.
For the record, I believe that the longer we can use things the better. But the fatigue that a reactor takes due to radiation damage (described in the article) would make it seem like a reactor has a definate finate expiration date, like most mechanical devices we humans make. Its just a matter of how much you want to push things, how much of a safety margin you want, etc.
Most things operating in industrial processes are going to have finite lifespans with the heats and stresses that are applied to them 24/7, plus in this case radiation. You're completely right about safety margin too. I used to run these simulations for mechanical engineers, and they'd always apply some safety factor. The challenge is is making sure that you're getting the most out of the material while still not compromising on safety.
All of that said, the analysis relies on tabulated data from the ASME code. I doubt they have the data necessary on radiation deterioration to do these detailed calcs. Assuming they don't, I think you're right that it would be prudent to retire them at this point.
All of that said, the analysis relies on tabulated data from the ASME code. I doubt they have the data necessary on radiation deterioration to do these detailed calcs.
The article that I linked goes into some detail about their understanding how radiation affects the containing material around it and what's required to repair it, and the rate that it fatigues. I believe that's the "layman's version" of the data you're looking for.
It sounds like it's close at the very least.
Close?
He was specifically referring to the serviceable ones.
At some point in time none of them are serviceable.
Nothing lasts forever, that's true. But it's not the incisive observation one might think. NPPs are some of the power sources with the longest service lives.
NPPs are some of the power sources with the longest service lives.
True, but they do have finite life spans, they do have end-of-life dates. They cannot be maintained and operated forever.
There may be some debate on how long they can go before they need to be decommissioned, but it is understood they all need to be decommissioned at some point, because they will fail catastrophically if they don't.
And they are one of the, if not the most important, structures that we should be more safe than sorry about, and decommissioned them earlier rather than at the last moment, for safety reasons.
all need to be decommissioned at some point, because they will fail catastrophically if they don't.
This is false, that idea comes from decades of anti-science fearmongering. They need to be decommissioned for the same reasons as everything else, they just become too expensive to maintain. Same as every other energy source, including renewables.
This is false, it’s fearmongering. They need to be decommissioned for the same reasons as everything else, they just become too expensive to maintain. Same as every other energy source, including renewables.
No, it's not fear mongering. The pressure that the metals of the reactor are put under from the radiation is a real thing, it causes damage and fatigue.
At some point they're decommissioned because if you keep them running they'll have catastrophic failures, which besides the loss of life and land, would be a great expense to the operators of the plant.
Go read that article that I linked in a different one of my comments in this same conversation, as it has some details about that.
The pressure that the metals of the reactor are put under from the radiation is a real thing, it causes damage and fatigue.
Yes.
they’re decommissioned because if you keep them running they’ll have catastrophic failures, which besides the loss of life and land
No. This is the fearmongering part. A nuclear plant that is past its service life doesn't just turn into Chernobyl.
I don't know what article you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure it won't trump my years of university education on this.
No. This is the fearmongering part. A nuclear plant that is past its service life doesn’t just turn into Chernobyl.
That's not what I said though, at all, hence no fear-mongering. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Here's what I said...
they’re decommissioned because if you keep them running they’ll have catastrophic failures
My point is you can't just keep them running forever, at some point you have to shut them off, you have to decommission them.
And also, by catastrophic I mean horrible leaks/contamination, not explosions
You said catastrophic failure in the same context as loss of life and land. That is what I was responding to, and it is incorrect.
You said catastrophic failure in the same context as loss of life and land. That is what I was responding to, and it is incorrect.
No, I didn't. Three Mile Island was a catastrophic failure, but it didn't explode in the same way that Fukushima or Chernobyl did.
Catastrophic means a complete and utter failure of the machine. How that failure manifests and effects can be different under each case. Again, Three Mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, all had catastrophic failures, all manifested and affected differently.
You made an incorrect assumption, a presumption on your part based on a single word, and then you're tried to force that on me, as words that I actually said which is wrong, as that's not what I said.
So, again, if those three examples are what you mean by catastrophic failure, then my assumption was correct. None of them were due to maintenance failures or being in service too long. Catastrophic failure is not a failure mode for a modern reactor past its service life.
That is what taxes are for. God forbid government officials have to cut into their overinflated bonuses to keep a major source of energy in service.
Even if you ignore capitalism, at some point they fatigue and break to the point where they cannot be repaired, but need to be replaced.
You don't have to demo a whole building to replace a machine. When they need to be replaced, replace it.
Money is literally the only excuse here. Greed is what prevents us from advancing, it's the reason we never switched from coal and why we are likely not going to last another 100 years. The old rich fuckers don't care, they aren't going to live that long anyways, and their children are going to be rich enough that even their descendants 10 generations from now will live comfortably in the hell we are turning the planet into.
No, it's not just about greed. The reactor itself, it's housing, and equipment around it have a definite lifetime to them, no matter how much you'd wish otherwise.
Better to decommission before it becomes unsafe, and build a next gen better new one.
Except Germany didn't build better new one.
Well that's a different problem than I'm arguing.
Disproven by Russia. Maybe sometimes core is replaced because it uses unsafe design by current standards like in St. Petesburg.
Russia isn't really known for their safety rules. A lot of those reactors are running way past their expiration and are deteriorating past the point where they should be running.
It's a finite fact. A reactor has a lifetime to it, then it needs to be replaced. Unlike other mechanical devices/engines it can't be serviced because of the radiation involved.
Russia isn't really known for their safety rules.
Agreed except nuclear. After Chernobyl there were no Nuclear Power Plant accidents in any post-Soviet country. Iven the scale of corruption in country I'm surprised.
A lot of those reactors are running way past their expiration and are deteriorating past the point where they should be running.
It depends how you define expiration. ISS expired like 4 times if not more. For example St. Petesburg NPP still has 2 РБМК-1000(same as in Chernobyl, but modernized) built in 1980(and 1981). Both are planned to be decommisioned in 2025.
Unlike other mechanical devices/engines it can't be serviced because of the radiation involved.
If reactors were unservicable, then there would be no need in NPP personel.
Both are planned to be decommisioned in 2025.
My point exactly. They have planned decommissioned dates because they cannot be serviced and maintained safely forever.
Unlike other mechanical devices/engines it can’t be serviced because of the radiation involved.
If reactors were unservicable, then there would be no need in NPP personel.
I disagree. During the lifetime operation of a plant they need personnel, it's not an All or Nothing thing. They don't just turn off the lights and shut the door and all walk out.
Hell, even after a plant starts it's decommission plan, which can take 10 to 20 years, they still need personnel.
For the love of everything, at least let's stop decommissioning serviceable nuclear plants.
Looking at you, Germany...
*looking intensifies*
Maybe it was Putin's sabotage?
Upd: nah, his mentality of 90-ies gang member doesn't allow him to think this far.
For real, God forbid we keep the actual safe, clean nuclear plants running
My understanding is that they eventually become unserviceable as they age, because of mechanical/structular reasons, or because the costs of servicing them is so prohibitive that they are unserviceable economically.
That they definitely have a begin, middle, and end, life cycle.
Well other countries have and are doing done so. I really doubt that the reason is anything that politics.
Buildings and machinery fatigue and wear out over time.
And highly critical uptime devices and buildings need extra maintenance and upkeep.
Old sites need to be decommissioned. Even if you ignore the financial costs in the upkeep at some point they just fatigue to the point of needing to be replaced.
I'm not anti-nuclear, all I'm saying is if you want nuclear you have to build new sites, you can't keep the old sites going forever.
Rotating equipment are replaceable is not that much of an issue they operate on regular steam.
Buildings are reinforced concrete unlikely to be a concern not in a reasonable timeframe unless rebars corrode for some reason.
Issue would be items operating with water directly in contact with the reactor, so critical piping, heat exchangers and reactor vessels, which I can't say I am an expert specifically for nuclear plants.
I imagine the main concern would be the reactor itself as all reat can be replaced.
Not to argue minutia, as it doesn't take away from my correct point, but I was speaking specifically of the reactor and it's housing and the building around it. A reactor when it's built has a pre-planned age limit to it.
We can do calculations to evaluate them. If someone creates a fairly accurate or at least conservative stimulation of the reactor and housing, a mechanical engineer should be able to determine if it's still good for operation or needs replacement. They use ASME code and tables to do life fraction calculations.
Fair enough. This article basically covers both the points you are making, as well as the point that I am making.
For the record, I believe that the longer we can use things the better. But the fatigue that a reactor takes due to radiation damage (described in the article) would make it seem like a reactor has a definate finate expiration date, like most mechanical devices we humans make. Its just a matter of how much you want to push things, how much of a safety margin you want, etc.
Most things operating in industrial processes are going to have finite lifespans with the heats and stresses that are applied to them 24/7, plus in this case radiation. You're completely right about safety margin too. I used to run these simulations for mechanical engineers, and they'd always apply some safety factor. The challenge is is making sure that you're getting the most out of the material while still not compromising on safety.
All of that said, the analysis relies on tabulated data from the ASME code. I doubt they have the data necessary on radiation deterioration to do these detailed calcs. Assuming they don't, I think you're right that it would be prudent to retire them at this point.
The article that I linked goes into some detail about their understanding how radiation affects the containing material around it and what's required to repair it, and the rate that it fatigues. I believe that's the "layman's version" of the data you're looking for.
It sounds like it's close at the very least.
Close?
He was specifically referring to the serviceable ones.
At some point in time none of them are serviceable.
Nothing lasts forever, that's true. But it's not the incisive observation one might think. NPPs are some of the power sources with the longest service lives.
True, but they do have finite life spans, they do have end-of-life dates. They cannot be maintained and operated forever.
There may be some debate on how long they can go before they need to be decommissioned, but it is understood they all need to be decommissioned at some point, because they will fail catastrophically if they don't.
And they are one of the, if not the most important, structures that we should be more safe than sorry about, and decommissioned them earlier rather than at the last moment, for safety reasons.
This is false, that idea comes from decades of anti-science fearmongering. They need to be decommissioned for the same reasons as everything else, they just become too expensive to maintain. Same as every other energy source, including renewables.
No, it's not fear mongering. The pressure that the metals of the reactor are put under from the radiation is a real thing, it causes damage and fatigue.
At some point they're decommissioned because if you keep them running they'll have catastrophic failures, which besides the loss of life and land, would be a great expense to the operators of the plant.
Go read that article that I linked in a different one of my comments in this same conversation, as it has some details about that.
Yes.
No. This is the fearmongering part. A nuclear plant that is past its service life doesn't just turn into Chernobyl.
I don't know what article you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure it won't trump my years of university education on this.
That's not what I said though, at all, hence no fear-mongering. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Here's what I said...
My point is you can't just keep them running forever, at some point you have to shut them off, you have to decommission them.
And also, by catastrophic I mean horrible leaks/contamination, not explosions
You said catastrophic failure in the same context as loss of life and land. That is what I was responding to, and it is incorrect.
No, I didn't. Three Mile Island was a catastrophic failure, but it didn't explode in the same way that Fukushima or Chernobyl did.
Catastrophic means a complete and utter failure of the machine. How that failure manifests and effects can be different under each case. Again, Three Mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, all had catastrophic failures, all manifested and affected differently.
You made an incorrect assumption, a presumption on your part based on a single word, and then you're tried to force that on me, as words that I actually said which is wrong, as that's not what I said.
So, again, if those three examples are what you mean by catastrophic failure, then my assumption was correct. None of them were due to maintenance failures or being in service too long. Catastrophic failure is not a failure mode for a modern reactor past its service life.
That is what taxes are for. God forbid government officials have to cut into their overinflated bonuses to keep a major source of energy in service.
Even if you ignore capitalism, at some point they fatigue and break to the point where they cannot be repaired, but need to be replaced.
You don't have to demo a whole building to replace a machine. When they need to be replaced, replace it.
Money is literally the only excuse here. Greed is what prevents us from advancing, it's the reason we never switched from coal and why we are likely not going to last another 100 years. The old rich fuckers don't care, they aren't going to live that long anyways, and their children are going to be rich enough that even their descendants 10 generations from now will live comfortably in the hell we are turning the planet into.
No, it's not just about greed. The reactor itself, it's housing, and equipment around it have a definite lifetime to them, no matter how much you'd wish otherwise.
Better to decommission before it becomes unsafe, and build a next gen better new one.
Except Germany didn't build better new one.
Well that's a different problem than I'm arguing.
Disproven by Russia. Maybe sometimes core is replaced because it uses unsafe design by current standards like in St. Petesburg.
Russia isn't really known for their safety rules. A lot of those reactors are running way past their expiration and are deteriorating past the point where they should be running.
It's a finite fact. A reactor has a lifetime to it, then it needs to be replaced. Unlike other mechanical devices/engines it can't be serviced because of the radiation involved.
Agreed except nuclear. After Chernobyl there were no Nuclear Power Plant accidents in any post-Soviet country. Iven the scale of corruption in country I'm surprised.
It depends how you define expiration. ISS expired like 4 times if not more. For example St. Petesburg NPP still has 2 РБМК-1000(same as in Chernobyl, but modernized) built in 1980(and 1981). Both are planned to be decommisioned in 2025.
If reactors were unservicable, then there would be no need in NPP personel.
My point exactly. They have planned decommissioned dates because they cannot be serviced and maintained safely forever.
I disagree. During the lifetime operation of a plant they need personnel, it's not an All or Nothing thing. They don't just turn off the lights and shut the door and all walk out.
Hell, even after a plant starts it's decommission plan, which can take 10 to 20 years, they still need personnel.