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.'"
Laws are for people to follow, not corporations or government organizations.
The Chalk river reactor.
What could possibly go boom?
coming soon near a reactor near you... we may finally get started on this super comics they have been writing about... it's about time :p
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
Apparently everyone wants to be like the Japanese...
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
A friend of mine was doing electrical panels inspections in Russian nuclear plants (some NGO program), and one time he was in a control center and noticed a door that had no sign. He asked what it was, but nobody knew. He opened it and saw a big rusty pipe. He found out that the pipe was carrying cooling water out of the machine room... The radioactivity level was so high that my friend got a 3-month paid leave to get it out of his system.
I'm no sissy, I could sleep in a haunted houses or dig out bones from indian sacred land, but there is just no way I'll ever set foot in a Russian nuclear plant or a Chinese chemical plant.
lucm, indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3D9ZC3eXI2tC8
"A good Engineer is always a wee bit conservative, at least on paper." - Scotty, to La Forge, regarding IRC Tank Pressure Variances Regulation 42/15
This story brings this quote to mind.
Just sayin'.
Sure, Russia is an international power that could stop them before something goes wrong... right?
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
1. Conservative estimates are appropriate for things that can melt down. Bigger impacts from "catastrophic failure" justify wider safety margins.
2. The original estimates already factored in maintenance and upgrades over their lifespan. Trying to factor them in again is just plain wrong.
3. Meltdowns are more expensive than construction. See also: Fukushima
4. Nuclear is a comparatively new technology, and there have been a lot of fundamental changes and advances in reactor design in the last 30 years. A coal plant may change out a turbine for a more energy-efficient model during its term, but you can't just pull a reactor core (along with all its infrastructure) and swap in a totally different design as part of an upgrade. Changes like that generally call for outright replacement anyway.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Billions of dollars are spent on mansions of certain politicians (think, what possibly that is legal, could Putin do to be able to build a billion dollar house at the Black sea side) and nothing will be spent to shut down the old nuclear powerplants and secure their remains and build new ones with new designs.
That's as good a reason as any to get rid of this troll from the government.
You can't handle the truth.
Please can some international power stop them before it goes wrong!
But; they have a really big army and might not agree to be ordered around by the Yanks. I know; Let's attack them with Nuclear weapons. It's the only reasonable response to countries which create a radiation risk by building reactors without permission. Of course they might retaliate a little bit, but safety must always be number one priority, so sacrifices have to be made.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Having Played SimCity, I can say from experience that this is a terrible idea. They clearly did not consult their advisers who would certainly have recommended upgrading to Microwave or Fusion. But, to be fair, it could be that Russia didn't unlock those yet.
USA, Canada, Russia... so on and so on...
Can we please build modern reactors? Y'know the kind that can actually use waste fuel so we can reduce the existing stockpile and are physically incapable of runaway reactions.
In the long standing tradition of auto comparisons: you wouldn't feel safe in a 35+ year old car if you drove it every day for all those years would you?
crazy dynamite monkey
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
You say this other nations haven't been doing the exact same thing for YEARS. Like the SIXTY+ granted by the US:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news/economy/nuclear_plants_us/index.htm
Laughably I remember after Chernobyl 1, hearing how they'll decommission those icky RBMKs real soon now. The day the last RBMK is shut off will be a good day for humanity. Hope I live that long (I figure I only got 50 good years left in me)
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
... nuclear reactors reengineer your lifespan!
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
2. The original estimates already factored in maintenance and upgrades over their lifespan. Trying to factor them in again is just plain wrong.
Nonsense.
The original estimates factored in some maintenance, virtually no upgrades, and much of it based on theoretical guesswork.
Now they have operated these plants for years, They can measure the actual degradation of the materials, and the history of failures
of actual parts in all of these reactors.
What you call just plain wrong is just plain engineering and advancements in materials science.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You say this other nations haven't been doing the exact same thing for YEARS
Where did he say that?
Most all power plants are life-extended past their first thirty years. Why should nuclear be different?
There are several things here.
Obviously a), b) and c) push in the opposite direction from d), e) and f). What this means is that basically we should have a smaller number of safer nuclear reactors run for longer by people who we can trust to ensure that a) and b) don't become a problem. Unfortunately people who support nuclear power tend to be in denial about the potential risks and so aren't the right people. I guess it's like politicians. Anybody who wants to be a politician should probably be ruled out from the job / anybody who wants to run a reactor should probably be banned from doing so :-)
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
The original estimates failed to factor in Chernobyl and a whole bunch of other safety problems waiting to happen. They needed major safety improvements in order to make the reactors even close to safe to run for their intended lifespan, and it appears that even then it was probably a bit questionable as to whether they should have continued to operate them.
Deutsche Sprache schwere Sprache!
reactor outlives you!
Does not mean it's the right thing to do.
Push it to the limit until it breaks...
Have a look at : http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2010/27c3-4187-en-your_infrastructure_will_kill_you.html
aaaaaaa
Russia is extending the lifetime of nuclear power reactors beyond their engineered life span of 30 years
What could possibly go wrong ?
There is no such thing as "rigorous oversight" in the nuke industry.
aaaaaaa
What could possibly go boom?
Some hundreds of tons of isotopes.
Russia does not really care. Unlike Japan, they can afford to sacrifice (again) tens of thousands of square kilometers.
aaaaaaa
"but you can't just pull a reactor core (along with all its infrastructure) and swap in a totally different design as part of an upgrade. Changes like that generally call for outright replacement anyway."
Of course you can.
They understand when a trope is so spot-on it isn't actually funny in that instance; there's no wit, none of the millisecond long confusion and subsequent cognitive leap that makes your brain say "what the fuc....Hahaha that's hilarious!" Not that Soviet Russia jokes were ever hysterical to begin with...
Anyway, in Soviet Russia they get this rule of humor, unnlike on slashdot where I've already seen five Soviet Russia comments in this post...
So? There is nothing new scientifically here, you design for a level of neutron damage and periodically verify your assumptions are correct. And you can always anneal the reactor vessel in place to remove much of the neutron damage and regain operating margins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_(metallurgy)
Complete B.S. Radiation hardened underwater camera systems have been available for 30 years. And there are fiber optic methods available for remote inspection as well.
More B.S. The most likely parts to fail in a reactor are never in the core. The nuclear industry is well away of which parts are closest to their long term operating margins and which require the most frequent inspection and repair. And the stuff inside the reactor vessel ain't it.
Nuclear power is the only industry that is not permitted to improve, it must be perfect from day one. FYI, hydro has killed more people than multiples of all other power generation methods combined. It's not even close. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Ehh? High capital costs are from what? High interest rates. Delays in plant construction and operation many times a result of frivilous lawsuits DESIGNED by environmental organizations to intentionally run up costs. Talk about self fulfilling criticisms. The current generation of plants are avoiding this by getting all that crap doen up front and also by self financing. We'll see.
This is true, but to put some context on this, the volumes are simply insignificantly small. We have many many many times the volume being buried from nasty municipal waste that have chemicals in it that do not decay away, but thats ok right?
Obviously a), b) and c) push in the opposite direction from d), e) and f). What this means is that basically we should have a smaller number of safer nuclear reactors run for longer by people who we can trust to ensure that a) and b) don
how about "longer lifespan kills you sooner!"
This isn't really an issue about extending reactor life - a perfectly reasonable process if the reactors were safe to begin with. These Water-cooled graphite reacotrs are inherently unstable and were dangerous the day they powered up. They should be shut down ASAP.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
good luck with your next CT scan.
Hope you never need an MRI again or anything else requiring a radiolabelled contrast agent.
It's also going to be a shame that we'll have to get by without (cheap) smoke detectors too.
Oh well, if it's for the good of humanity!
I'm pretty sure all reactors that have a catastrophic failure do that.
Thanks for your comment most of which is interesting and lucid, however I don't think you are even able to recognise a favourable comment when you see one. I was quite specifically trying to rule out the extension of these power plants because I simply don't yet know enough of the details to judge.
Let's have a look at one point.
Complete B.S. Radiation hardened underwater camera systems have been available for 30 years. And there are fiber optic methods available for remote inspection as well.
I was in no way trying to suggest there's no inspection possible. I said "can even"; in other words it's not inevitable that electronics will be destroyed. Basically something you more than admit by saying that special systems are needed. That means that, instead of having the most advanced off the shelf tools, inspection can only be done with a more limited set of tools. When you inspect a plane, you walk around it; you look for anything suspicious. If you find something, you take it apart and view it with a special tool (e.g. an ultrasound scanner). When you do the same to parts of a reactor you end up limited to remote viewing and those tools that have been prepared and radiation hardened for you. This simply does make inspecting the inside of a nuclear plant harder than most other situations. Certainly harder than either aeronautic inspection or inspection of a conventional plant.
This makes no sense at all. So you are saying the people who you recruit who show the proper dedication and professionalism cannot be trusted to be nuclear plant operators BECAUSE of that professionalism? What B.S. Wow.
No; dedication and professionalism are fine. However, paranoia and an inability to communicate and discuss risk are not. The perfect example is point d). I'm clearly making a point in favour of new reactors. I'm precisely saying that reactors are improving and that that's a good thing. Instead you seem to take it as an attack on the nuclear industry. I am sorry, but I wouldn't want you to be the person judging if a new reactor is safe or not.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Where I live we still have (mildly) radioactive sheep from Chernobyl which farmers can't sell. I would suspect that our masters wish to extend the life of nuclear plants for two reasons - lack of people willing to invest in new ones and the cost of decommissioning. I remember reading last week in the paper (one editorially in favour of nuclear power) the soothing news that that the land around Dounreay plant in Scotland which has now closed should be relatively safe in 330 years. Also the decommissioning cost at today's estimates will only set the UK taxpayer, or perhaps soon the Scottish taxpayer, back by around £3 billion. That's for one plant. You can see how the costs will rack up as lots come to the end of their useful life.
"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead!" - Stan Laurel
I like it. Catchy. Please cancel his/her/bot's -1
Table-ized A.I.
Make sure to insist to anyone in your family who ever gets cancer that they can't use radiotherapy or diagnostic imaging / isotopes because that's supporting those evil nuclear reactors, and they should just suck it up and die for the good of humanity.
After all, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you?
Void coefficients aren't everything. Non-RMBK reactors can fail catastrophically, and RMBK reactors can be run very cautiously without incident. In the case of Chernobyl, it took a lot of human error and many safety systems being disabled to cause the incident.
And why did that happen? Because Chernobyl was testing a new backup power system, for cooling the reactor when main power was lost. The idea was to use the energy already present in the system before having to rely on backup generators.
But I guess if you have a better void coefficient you don't have to worry about things like backup generators failing. Perfectly safe unlike those Russians, nothing similar could happen, amirite?
No; dedication and professionalism are fine. However, paranoia and an inability to communicate and discuss risk are not. The perfect example is point d). I'm clearly making a point in favour of new reactors. I'm precisely saying that reactors are improving and that that's a good thing. Instead you seem to take it as an attack on the nuclear industry. I am sorry, but I wouldn't want you to be the person judging if a new reactor is safe or not.
Too late.
Muhuhuahahaha.
They should be shut down ASAP.
Where do you suggest they get the energy instead, then?
Oddly enough the people that taught me how to do remaining life assessment of high temperature, high pressure pipework were from a nuclear facility. They took it seriously.
A lot of power stations run well beyond their originally expected life. Nobody outside of China wants to put down the capital to build a large power station of any kind anymore.
Also some reactors, most famously the liquid sodium cooled ones, have so much replaced over the years that they are like the proverbial grandpa's axe (on the third head and fifth handle but still considered the same axe grandpa had).
When I was doing prototype duty as part of the Navy's Nuclear Power School, the reactor I was assigned to had had exactly that done to it.
Worked fine when I was there (~20 years after that core change). Only reason it's not still in use is that we don't have any operational boats that still use the design....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I think he meant "You say this like other nations haven't been doing the exact same thing for YEARS"
Shit, I remember reading about that in school. Latin class, to be specific - translating a section of Cassius Dio's Historia Romana about its construction. That alone tells you how incredibly old and overdesigned that thing is.
If you build something to last, its not overdesign, its good architecture. The concept of calulating the lifespan of a building is a very new and sad one, since it means you only build stuff that will make you "get your money back" before that time, preferrably within a generation. I know we cant have the old times back, but I am living in a city quarter that was built in the 1880s and most people in my town woul rather live in those "overdesigned" houses than the overprized concrete crap investors spray into the cityscape here. And, honestly, I would sincerely wish my government would build bridges and buildings that were designed to last, not to crumble after 50 years. What are we going to show our grandchildren? "And here was a building called 'the green mall' when I was a child, but when I was fourty they tore it down to build a school there, and now as you can see they are dynamiting that to replace it with an office building"? Regards
Invita Invidia
Pfft, Russia. Before Fukushima, Germany was dead-set doing the exact same thing. In fact, even with that extension law abandoned now due to pressure from the people, some of our oldest reactors will reach 30 next year and go on running a few more years.
I am, in fact, pro-nuclear-power. But I am strongly against doing it commercially with the focus on profit. You play with forces like that, you focus in safety or you are an irresponsible, antisocial psychopath.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Since when did the rule of law apply in Russia?
Filmo The Klown
Nuclear power is the only industry that is not permitted to improve, it must be perfect from day one. FYI, hydro has killed more people than multiples of all other power generation methods combined. It's not even close. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
That's a popular nuclear industry talking point, but it's not really accurate because Banqiao Dam was constructed in part as a flood defense mechanism. They actually ended up essentially rebuilding it a few years later due to catastrophic flooding downstream that couldn't be prevented without it.
Fun-ny stuff! When's your Comedy Central special air?
How are you going to convince Russia to spend the money to do so though? You can't even give them the cash yourself because it would be seen as an insult to their ability to run their nuclear industry. You also have to worry about North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India and all the former Soviet bloc states that still run their plants.
The only solution is to push new technologies hard. Demand for them is already growing and in a few years when we have several very large scale generator projects up and running we can push them as a viable alternative to nuclear and coal. Iran and North Korea might still want nuclear for weapons but at least the others will be more inclined to replace their existing reactors and break into a new and profitable industry.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's not a talking point if it killed hundreds of thousands of people.
ahh yes, I see it now.
I was quite specifically not trying to rule out the extension of these power plants because I simply don't yet know enough of the details to judge.
ARRRRGGGHH... ..
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
The UK nuclear industry has been rather careless at times, especially the military parts of it and especially with nuclear waste. Still, I guess we taught the rest of the world important lessons like "never build an air-cooled nuclear reactor, especially not with a graphite moderator", "don't dump radioactive waste in the sea", and "it's a lot cheaper to track what's going into your nuclear waste storage than to have to figure it out later, unless you're not the one paying the bill"
It's not a talking point if it killed hundreds of thousands of people.
It's a talking point because the lack of it killed people as a result of flooding, they needed a flood control system of some kind anyway, and it would've been fairly effective as such if they hadn't cut corners on the engineering, had worse flooding than it was designed to protect against, and failed to operate it correctly in the face of that flooding. They also apparently didn't actually manage to evacuate the areas that were meant to be evacuated.
China's handling of natural disasters is... well, you remember the 2008 earthquake, complete with collapsing schools?