NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/environm/5399

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-09 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!naughty-peahen
From: Jym Dyer <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nukes as Stop-Gap (Power Plant Lifetimes)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 07:27:19 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <Jym.8Jan1993.2327@naughty-peahen>
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> Fossil plants have finite lifetimes - typically a little
> shorter than fission plant (design) lifetimes.

=+= Just to put this into perspective:  In the United States,
Fossil power plants are licensed for 40 years, which is their
expected lifetimes.  At the end of that time, it is typically
affordable to do some work on the equipment and put it back
to use.

=+= When it came time to license nuclear power plants, the same
figure was employed:  40 years.  This had nothing to do with the
expected useful life of the plant (30 years), but was a good way
for the owners of these plants to take advantage of existing tax
breaks based on a 40-year depreciation lifetime.

=+= Of course, once these plants got going, it turned out that
most were going to last longer than 40 years.  And for one
reason:  unreliability.  Nuclear power plants spend a tremendous
amount of time down.

=+= When their lifetimes are up, it is far from affordable to
put them back to work.  The cost of decommissiong is stagger-
ingly high, so basically they get mothballed:  barbed wire
fences go up, security guards are hired, and the problem is
passed on to future generations (grateful to add this to the
many problems they have to solve, of course).
    <_Jym_>