Slashdot Mirror
Would You Trust an 80-Year-Old Nuclear Reactor?
the_newsbeagle writes "The worst nuclear near-disaster that you've never heard of came to light in 2002, when inspectors at Ohio's Davis-Besse nuclear power station discovered that a slow leak had been corroding a spot on the reactor vessel's lid for years (PDF). When they found the cavity, only 1 cm of metal was left to protect the nuclear core. That kind of slow and steady degradation is a major concern as the US's 104 reactors get older and grayer, says nuclear researcher Leonard Bond. U.S. reactors were originally licensed for 40 years of operation, but the majority have already received extensions to keep them going until the age of 60. Industry researchers like Bond are now determining whether it would be safe and economically feasible to keep them active until the age of 80. Bond describes the monitoring techniques that could be used to watch over aging reactors, and argues that despite the risks, the U.S. needs these aging atomic behemoths."
Meanwhile, some very, very rich individuals have taken an interest in the future of nuclear power.
They could be.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The process currently requires that licensee demonstrate using technical analysis that the vessel is fully capable of performing its design function for the entire licenses period. As long as technical analysis demonstrate that the vessel will continue to function, why not allow the plants to extend their license indefinitely? If the stress on the vessel due to cooldowns, heatups, and neutron flux is less than the margin for performing its design function, then preventing a extending license is an action based on fear not science.
A common misconception is that plants were only initially licensed for 40 years due to technical concerns. As it turns out the AEC (the predecessor to the NRC) just picked an arbitrary amount of time to issue operating licenses. There was not a technical basis to the 40 year time period. That being said, some manufactures may have used the 40 year time period as a design input for reactor designs. However there is no mysterious phenomenon that causes the reactor to turn into a pumpkin.
dont_forget
No really, I came within a cat's whisker of having a terrible blowout at highway speed and being crunched by an 18 wheeler.
But what actually happened is I didn't drive anywhere today, so I didn't have a blowout, so I didn't lose control of my car, so I wasn't crunched by an 18-wheeler.
WHEW, that was close!
OH, and the Davis-Besse reactor didn't cause any probvlems either.
So you think a 20-year-old car drive 400,000 miles runs the same as 10-year-old car driven 200,000 miles?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I wouldn't trust one built 80 years ago. I would be more likely to trust that one built today can run 80 years safely. We have learned a lot since we started making reactors and they have gotten safer over the years. (I know that there aren't reactors that old yet, but the point is the oldest still operating were not designed for that life span; the newer ones have a better chance of being engineered for longer life.)
If that car was maintained with as much oversight & regulation as a nuclear reactor, then yes, it would run just as well. In fact, it would probably run *better* at 20 years than at 10 just due to upgrades that weren't available as original equipment.
Solar, even in the desert: people complain about the local flora and fauna.
Geothermal: people complain that you're creating earthquakes.
Hydro: Dams are Satan's tools.
Wind: It's killing the BIRDS!
I have friends I argue with incessantly about these things, who seem to have the odd idea that a solar panel on your roof will power your entire house and everything in it, all day long