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.'"
The Chalk river reactor.
What could possibly go boom?
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.
"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'.
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.
There are two types of laws that engineers have to consider, and I'm pretty sure that corporations and governments cannot violate the laws of physics.
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.
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
But corporations are people too!
I'm pretty sure that corporations and governments cannot violate the laws of physics.
You fool!
Black Mesa, Aperture Science, and UAC mean nothing to you?
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.
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.
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 ?
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
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
there is no such thing as FUD
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
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
Big deal. I'm a physicist. If the shit hits the fan just give me a gun and a crowbar and I'll take care of things. Don't worry about firearms training either - as a physicist in a desperate situation I'll magically obtain amazing combat skills that go beyond what the US Marines are even capable of, so I'm sure I'll be fine.
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
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