this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2164 points (94.4% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2973 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] supercriticalcheese@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It sounds like it's close at the very least.