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.

Comments

I wouldn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't trust an 80-year-old anything.

Re:I wouldn't.

[Local ID10T]

Either science and engineering is right or it isn't. If you think engineers can safely build a nuclear reactor and operate it for 40 years, why is 80 years different if they can demonstrate strong engineering judgement? And if 80 years isn't safe, then what arbitrary number is it that it becomes unsafe?

But in fact they designed and built it to operate safely for 40 years...

We have been lucky that they were being conservative (as most good engineers are) and it has lasted 60 years. I'd rather not push my luck to 80 years.

If it were designed and built to last 80 years, yes I would trust it to last 80 years. We know a lot more about nuclear physics than we did when these plants were designed. We have a much better understanding of what not to do, which gives us a much better understanding of what to do. If the engineers say that the new design is good for 80 years, great. If the engineers say that it is good for 40 years, I am certainly not going to try and talk them into 80 years. That would be the difference between engineering and politics.

Re:I wouldn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Either science and engineering is right or it isn't. If you think engineers can safely build a nuclear reactor and operate it for 40 years, why is 80 years different if they can demonstrate strong engineering judgement?

So you think a 20-year-old car drive 400,000 miles runs the same as 10-year-old car driven 200,000 miles?

Do you think a 1 year old car runs as well as a 5 year old car?

Pick your poison. If you are going to pick an arbitrary number to label 'unsafe', there ought to be some sort of justification.

My argument is that if the engineering supports continued operation (with longevity modifications as necessary) then that is enough if we believe that engineering is a valid discipline that can design this type of technology. This logic isn't specific to nuclear reactors. It applies to airplanes, bridges, dams, ships, etc. I'm not saying that risk doesn't need to be factored in. It does. But not in a haphazard FUD dominated way without looking at the data.

Why do we operate dams for over 100 years? The engineering supports it.

Why do we operate airplanes for over 30 years? The engineering supports it.

Why do we sail ships that are over 50 years old? The engineering supports it.

Why do we operate nuclear reactors for over 40 years?

Re:I wouldn't.

[tragedy]

If you think engineers can safely build a nuclear reactor and operate it for 40 years, why is 80 years different if they can demonstrate strong engineering judgement?

If I can safely run 40 feet along a pier without falling into the water, why is 80 feet any different?

Re:I wouldn't.

[PopeRatzo]

Whether they can survive 80 years is debatable, but that's a question for the engineers/scientists.

No, it's a question for the CEO/Board of Directors. When they want the opinion of engineers/scientists, they'll give it to them.

Re:I wouldn't.

[EdIII]

I wouldn't trust your grandfather for two seconds.

Two things:

1) Old people run dangerously low on fucks, and therefore have much less to give. Not good. Especially, if they can be amused by whatever their addled, senile brains have come up with.
2) The old adage that youth and skill will always fail when faced with old age and treachery. After years of collecting data on this phenomenon I confidently state this is as true as gravity.

My grandfather is gone, and I do miss him terribly, but I do also sleep better without worrying what prank he is going to play next. That, and my mother screaming, "get your balls off my couch old man". He refused to wear anything other than a kimono that did not fit him.

Re:I wouldn't.

[hairyfeet]

It's not got a damned thing to do with voting...unless you consider NIMBYism as a form of voting that is.

Whether we like it or not folks our need for power is going nowhere but up, rolling blackouts in this heat will frankly leave some folks dead, including elderly and the sickly, and we just don't have any tech that can replace these as of yet. What we need is reliable 24/7/365 power and so far the renewables simply can't give us that so its nuke or coal and NG, take your pick.

Personally i'd prefer it if we were building those thorium reactors that can power an average city and reprocessing the waste but the NIMBYs have a screaming shitfit. But of course if you talk about building a coal or NG plant they have a screaming shitfit too, hell they even had a screaming shitfit about those wind towers off of the east coast remember?

Unless you want to go back to living in mud huts and burying the old and sick from heatstroke by the dozens we simply HAVE to have the power folks. As someone who lives less than 150 miles from a pair of reactors frankly I'm more worried about getting hit by a moron texting on his iPhone than i am a meltdown. I'm glad we have those plants as we haven't had a blackout around here in ages and with this heat I know several elderly relatives that would end up in the hospital or the morgue if it weren't for AC, including my parents.

If you don't want old plants tell the NIMBYs to STFU and build the new designs as fast as we can crank 'em out, simple as that.

No worries

[dak664]

Well sure the regulators would not extend the license unless it was absolutely safe. And the power companies know they would get a painful slap on the wrist if anything went wrong.

SimCity

[dg41]

If I learned anything from SimCity it was to never let your reactor stay online beyond its intended life - unless you have disasters turned off, of course.

Technical Analysis

[dont_forget]

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.

Re:What is there to turst?

[DarkOx]

People keep comparing the deaths per capita from nuclear to things like car and plane accidents and especially other methods of power generation. I would suggest its NOT A USEFUL METRIC.

Our society has the means to absorb the geographically dispersed individual and and handfuls of people lost in car wrecks each day all over the place. Even the the total number is large, its dilute and the long term loss of economic resources such as land is minimal. The odd air craft accident that claims a few hundred is more painful but still manageable.

The slow deaths from coal and such get spread out across decades of somewhat elevated medical expenses and environmental clean up projects. Even an major accident like a slag spill can be contained and cleaned up with conventional equipment and means.

A major Chernobyl or Fukushima like accident however rare stands to displace tens of thousands of people at once and render major economic assets and surrounding land unusable for decades, all at once! That is the sort of thing that derails entire economies.

Its the difference between being shot and say having HIV. Over the long haul HIV and sympathetic infections probably do more total harm, but its spread out you can live with it for a long time. The bullet on the other though it might kill few cells on initial impact, often does enough damage that its immediately catastrophic anyway.

Re:If only there were another solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I'm terrified of nuclear families.