Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caraher

(6,278 posts)
8. Do you trust the World Nuclear Association on design life?
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 06:25 PM
Nov 2013

Clearly anti-nuke propagandists have hacked the World Nuclear Organization's web site, which agrees with rhett's statement that the design life of most reactors is 40 years:

Lifetime of nuclear reactors

Most of today's nuclear plants which (sic) were originally designed for 30 or 40-year operating lives. However, with major investments in systems, structures and components lives can be extended, and in several countries there are active programs to extend operating lives. In the USA most of the more than one hundred reactors are expected to be granted licence extensions from 40 to 60 years. This justifies significant capital expenditure in upgrading systems and components, including building in extra performance margins.


It's one thing to argue that reactors can be safely upgraded; it's another to create out of thin air a distinction between design lifetime and license term that not even a leading organization of nuclear professionals chooses to make.
SCIENCE says you are WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #1
Please provide links to your statistics. Common sense says that you are wrong. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #5
BALONEY!!! PamW Nov 2013 #7
Do you trust the World Nuclear Association on design life? caraher Nov 2013 #8
WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #11
It isn't ambiguous: "...designed for 30 or 40-year operating lives" kristopher Nov 2013 #32
Vessel lifetime PamW Nov 2013 #33
Your "WRONG" was wrong kristopher Nov 2013 #34
NOT in the SLIGHTEST!!! PamW Dec 2013 #42
Right, you aren't slightly wrong you are completely and demonstrably wrong. kristopher Dec 2013 #43
Proof by assertion again..???? PamW Dec 2013 #44
I like your third person use of "the progressives" caraher Dec 2013 #46
Wow! I was hoping to have a nice discussion but you went nuclear. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #15
Well, it's true.. PamW Nov 2013 #21
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/112756356 kristopher Nov 2013 #9
SCIENCE says that? Really? ljm2002 Nov 2013 #10
BALONEY!!! PamW Nov 2013 #12
Oh dear... ljm2002 Nov 2013 #13
Another "environmentalist" that doesn't understand the NAS PamW Nov 2013 #14
I can't help it... ljm2002 Nov 2013 #17
The above DELUSIONS are all in your head... PamW Nov 2013 #18
Nuclear Power is the right thing to do. PamW Nov 2013 #28
Nuclear and coal with CCS are poor choices to address climate change kristopher Nov 2013 #36
YAWN!!! Jacobsen again; and not even fresh; old 2009 "vintage"... PamW Dec 2013 #45
Don't buy the false claim about the NAS kristopher Nov 2013 #16
Kristopher is so familiar with the study... PamW Nov 2013 #19
OK, you redeemed yourself a bit with this: GliderGuider Nov 2013 #20
Only the CENSORED version from kristopher PamW Nov 2013 #22
DO I have it right, IIRC FogerRox Nov 2013 #23
It has to do with the stability of the grid PamW Nov 2013 #25
What do the National Academies of Science and Engineering say about our energy future? kristopher Nov 2013 #30
We can alway count on kristopher... PamW Nov 2013 #31
LOGIC says you are wrong (and so are the nuclear evangelists) GliderGuider Nov 2013 #2
That should be "Invalid logic" in your title kristopher Nov 2013 #3
I don't argue with evangelists any more. I just point out that there is no God... GliderGuider Nov 2013 #4
and that our species can't even come close to substituting for Him MisterP Nov 2013 #29
No Nukes colsohlibgal Nov 2013 #6
Yeah. Apparently. That's why we've had cheering for this rich boy's fantasy for 60 years... NNadir Nov 2013 #24
Well, many countries are pressing ahead with alternative energy sources claras Nov 2013 #26
China isn't a great example FBaggins Nov 2013 #27
The Answer to Climate Change Is Neither Renewable Energy, Nor Nuclear Power GliderGuider Nov 2013 #35
Also over the past decade renewables began to achieve grid parity kristopher Nov 2013 #37
The picture isn't much better when "energy" is restricted to electricity GliderGuider Nov 2013 #38
Judging by that off point answer you don't seem to know what primary energy is kristopher Nov 2013 #39
That's why the last one wasn't in terms of primary energy, but electricity. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #40
And you still ignore the main point raised against your OP kristopher Nov 2013 #41
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The Answer to Climate Cha...»Reply #8