Slashdot Mirror


Russia Set To Extend Life of Nuclear Reactors Past Engineered Life Span

Harperdog writes "Yikes! Russia is extending the lifetime of nuclear power reactors beyond their engineered life span of 30 years, including the nation's oldest reactors: first-generation VVERs and RBMKs, the Chernobyl-type reactors. This goes against existing Russian law, because the projects have not undergone environmental assessments. 'Many of the country's experts and non-governmental organizations maintain that this decision is economically unjustifiable and environmentally dangerous — to say nothing of illegal. The Russian nuclear industry, however, argues that lifetime extensions are justified because the original estimate of a 30-year life span was conservative; the plants have been significantly upgraded; and extensions cost significantly less than constructing new reactors.'"

5 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So does Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As does the US, which has re-certified multiple reactors, including both at Nine Mile Point, which were re-certified for an additional 20 years after their initial lifespan.

  2. Re:Well, by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except it does:

    During life-extension projects, engineers determine which components are in need of replacement, and which can remain in service if maintained regularly. Some parts of a reactor, however, cannot be replaced -- including the reactor casing and its internal elements, the graphite stack (found in RBMK reactors), primary coolant circuits, primary coolant pumps, and biological shield systems. These parts are crucial for the safe operation of a reactor, particularly a first-generation reactor.

    In the case of the Kola nuclear power plant in northern Russia, for example, the reactor casing should be replaced in order to ensure safer operation, but that cannot be done without building a new reactor. In addition, the proximity of the fuel assemblies to the steel walls in the VVER-440 reactor tank -- such as those used in two of Kola's reactor units -- results in higher neutron irradiation than in other types of reactors, so the walls of the VVER-440 become brittle more rapidly.

  3. We do this too... by Urza9814 · · Score: 5, Informative

    So far the US has granted extensions like this to more than SIXTY reactors. How many has Russia given out so far?

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news/economy/nuclear_plants_us/index.htm

  4. Re:So does Canada. by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

    Design life span is a best guess.

    Actual use reveals the true life span. Aggressive maintenance can stretch life span even further.

    The same is true of small to medium sized hydro dams. They were so over-built that many of them have exceeded their design life. Some have doubled their design life without showing significant degradation, especially with new resurfacing technologies.

    It is said that "Engineering is the art of finding the least safe design".
    By which it is meant that engineers design to use the least materials, cost, labor, and still achieve a safe result.

    When actual measurements and data are poor, or not available, engineers (the good ones) over build.
    They design in extra safety factors, excessive strength. The result is you have Brooklyn Bridges, (a whipersnapper compared to the Ponte Fabrico B52s, the aqueducts (some still in use) and similar very over-engineered projects.

    That some reactors that were designed when the industry was in its infancy are still safe and suitable today is not all that surprising. People didn't push the envelope as often then.

    But it remains to be seen expect that of future designs.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  5. Re:Insane by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry, that's a fairy tale.

    1) There's no way a 'room which nobody knows about' can exist in a nuclear power plant.

    2) Especially if it contains components from the freaking primary contour. And the secondary cooling contour is absolutely safe - you can drink water from it.

    3) There's no way radiation levels can be large enough to cause significant irradiation in several minutes. Absolutely none at all - primary cooling water is radioactive, but not that much (it's continuously monitored).

    4) Power plant operators after Chernobyl are _very_ careful. For a reason.

    But what do I know? After all, I have actually worked on a Russian nuclear power plant.