Japan Plans To Scrap Nuclear Plants After 40 Years

An anonymous reader writes with this news as carried by the San Francisco Chronicle: "After the nuclear meltdown of the Fukushima plant, 'Japan says it will soon require atomic reactors to be shut down after 40 years of use to improve safety.' If, however, a nuclear plant is deemed still safe it may continue operation."

Comments

Re:Japan's energy future

[fnj]

And forget about the "base load" vs "intermittency" argument.

Yeah, let's just forget about the key reason why wind power can never form the bulk of power generating capacity. Hell, who cares about facts.

Situation, same as normal

[Firethorn]

40 years was the original design life for nuclear reactors. Of course, this article is pretty much 'life as normal'. In the USA you get a permit good for X years, normally 40. When a reactor reaches the end of that life, the owner of the plant has to decide whether to shut it down or move for permit renewal, where they have to, guess what, prove the plant is still safe to standards. That most likely means spending some millions on plant refurbishment/upgrades.

Look at Fukushima - it was scheduled to be shut down.

That being said - I DO support replacing old nuclear plants with new ones - they're more efficient and safer.

Re:Situation, same as normal

[Maury Markowitz]

"Has a reactor ever failed because of old age? Fukushima certainly didn't. "

Fukushima absolutely *did* fail due to age. The primary pressure relief system failed, primarily due to age. It took several hours before pressure relief started.

Beyond that, many reactors have suffered failures due to neutron hardening of the plumbing, particularly in the primary cooling loops. Re-piping is a common occurrence, and has added operational costs well beyond predictions. It has been the cause for massive cost overruns here in Ontario, for instance.