• Cosmic Cleric
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Buildings and machinery fatigue and wear out over time.

      And highly critical uptime devices and buildings need extra maintenance and upkeep.

      Old sites need to be decommissioned. Even if you ignore the financial costs in the upkeep at some point they just fatigue to the point of needing to be replaced.

      I’m not anti-nuclear, all I’m saying is if you want nuclear you have to build new sites, you can’t keep the old sites going forever.

      • @supercriticalcheese@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Rotating equipment are replaceable is not that much of an issue they operate on regular steam.

        Buildings are reinforced concrete unlikely to be a concern not in a reasonable timeframe unless rebars corrode for some reason.

        Issue would be items operating with water directly in contact with the reactor, so critical piping, heat exchangers and reactor vessels, which I can’t say I am an expert specifically for nuclear plants.

        I imagine the main concern would be the reactor itself as all reat can be replaced.

        • Cosmic Cleric
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Not to argue minutia, as it doesn’t take away from my correct point, but I was speaking specifically of the reactor and it’s housing and the building around it. A reactor when it’s built has a pre-planned age limit to it.

          • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            We can do calculations to evaluate them. If someone creates a fairly accurate or at least conservative stimulation of the reactor and housing, a mechanical engineer should be able to determine if it’s still good for operation or needs replacement. They use ASME code and tables to do life fraction calculations.