2233
Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
1139 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 3 years ago (3 children)

Disproven by Russia. Maybe sometimes core is replaced because it uses unsafe design by current standards like in St. Petesburg.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    Russia isn't really known for their safety rules. A lot of those reactors are running way past their expiration and are deteriorating past the point where they should be running.

    It's a finite fact. A reactor has a lifetime to it, then it needs to be replaced. Unlike other mechanical devices/engines it can't be serviced because of the radiation involved.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Russia isn't really known for their safety rules.

    Agreed except nuclear. After Chernobyl there were no Nuclear Power Plant accidents in any post-Soviet country. Iven the scale of corruption in country I'm surprised.

    A lot of those reactors are running way past their expiration and are deteriorating past the point where they should be running.

    It depends how you define expiration. ISS expired like 4 times if not more. For example St. Petesburg NPP still has 2 РБМК-1000(same as in Chernobyl, but modernized) built in 1980(and 1981). Both are planned to be decommisioned in 2025.

    Unlike other mechanical devices/engines it can't be serviced because of the radiation involved.

    If reactors were unservicable, then there would be no need in NPP personel.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Both are planned to be decommisioned in 2025.

    My point exactly. They have planned decommissioned dates because they cannot be serviced and maintained safely forever.

    Unlike other mechanical devices/engines it can’t be serviced because of the radiation involved.

    If reactors were unservicable, then there would be no need in NPP personel.

    I disagree. During the lifetime operation of a plant they need personnel, it's not an All or Nothing thing. They don't just turn off the lights and shut the door and all walk out.

    Hell, even after a plant starts it's decommission plan, which can take 10 to 20 years, they still need personnel.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent