Re:Electricity map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity
by teachrdan on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @05:08PM
(#30771579)
But OP isn't talking about newly-built plants. OP is doing what many pro-nuclear folks do, which is to posit a counterfactual history where we built dozens (hundreds?) of nuclear plants in the 70s. That would leave us with many, many obsolete nuclear plants reaching the end of their intended lifespan all at once over the last few years. (Nuclear plants were typically permitted to operate for 40 years, although may have successfully applied for extensions and continue to run today.)
Re:Electricity map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity
by realusername on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @05:14PM
(#30771647)
They were not "permitted" to run 40 years, they were planned for at least 40 years, that's completely different.
Any time extension is a tradeoff, there's nothing wrong with extending the lifespan if the regulators are okay with it.
Re:Electricity map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity
by teachrdan on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @12:44PM
(#30780413)
It looks like I was imprecise with my language. It looks like plants are licensed for 40 years. Extensions are for an additional 20 years. (!)
> there's nothing wrong with extending the lifespan if the regulators are okay with it.
Perhaps! Unless regulators make a mistake, or are pressured politically or by industry to extend licenses when they ought not be. I'm not sure I'd want to go into a hypothetical 2030s where the US had scores of nuclear power plants to decommission two decades after the end of their original lifespan.
People make way to big a deal of how amazingly complex nuclear plants are. Its not some magical spell that prevents demons from entering the world.
And the potential of accidents even in case of terrorist attack (or whatever fantasy scenario) is far smaller then people want to claim.