this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
1144 points (95.0% liked)

World News

39104 readers
3271 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 166 points 1 year ago (3 children)

For the love of everything, at least let's stop decommissioning serviceable nuclear plants.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 44 points 1 year ago

Looking at you, Germany...

[–] Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For real, God forbid we keep the actual safe, clean nuclear plants running

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

My understanding is that they eventually become unserviceable as they age, because of mechanical/structular reasons, or because the costs of servicing them is so prohibitive that they are unserviceable economically.

That they definitely have a begin, middle, and end, life cycle.

[–] supercriticalcheese@feddit.it 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well other countries have and are doing done so. I really doubt that the reason is anything that politics.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 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.

[–] imgonnatrythis@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

He was specifically referring to the serviceable ones.

[–] uis@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

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