• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Disproven by Russia. Maybe sometimes core is replaced because it uses unsafe design by current standards like in St. Petesburg.