Lifespan of nuclear power plants and types of reactors

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Lifespan of nuclear power plants and types of reactors




by Christophe » 14/03/11, 13:05

A parliamentary debate report on the lifespan of nuclear power plants and new types of nuclear reactors is very, very comprehensive!

Introduction

It was on November 6, 2002 that the Committee on Economic Affairs, the Environment and the Territory of the National Assembly referred to the Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices a study on "the duration of life of nuclear power plants and new types of reactors ”.

Appointed on 20 November 2002, your Rapporteurs have, according to the Office's procedure, drawn up a feasibility study concluding that it is possible to produce a report on this question within a few months. After this study was adopted on 4 December by the Parliamentary Office, your Rapporteurs immediately set to work.

Some figures to quantitatively assess the work of preparation of this report: 110 hours of official hearings in France or abroad, including one day of public hearing, 4 countries studied with multiple meetings on site, Finland, Sweden, Germany , United States, 180 people interviewed, many hours of informal discussions.

As is the practice more and more frequent in the Parliamentary Office, a steering committee, whose members are warmly thanked here, but whose responsibility is not in any way engaged by the present text, provided effective assistance for select the personalities to be interviewed, identify the key questions and analyze the information provided by the interlocutors.

The text of the referral to the Committee on Economic Affairs is clear. Consequently, the purpose of this report is neither to paint a picture of the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power nor to indicate whether France would benefit in the future from reducing the share of nuclear power in the production of 'electricity.

This report, in contrast, aim to answer simple but fundamental questions for the French electricity production.

What are the phenomena that could limit the operating time of nuclear power plants? How can we fight against their aging, at what price and under what conditions of safety?

Moreover, if the political decision is made to renew our power plants, on which date he will start doing it? What are the available technologies as an extension of current technologies, or rather out with channels currently in use, and when?

For the national nuclear operator that is EDF and for the public electricity service to which the French are attached whatever their political affiliation, the lifespan of the reactors currently in service is a question in the tens of billions of dollars. euros.

The Parliamentary Office was the first in 1999 to put this question in the public arena, a question which has a financial impact not only on EDF's accounts, but also on the cost of the electricity which we other consumers have available to us. .

Beyond the situation of EDF and the electricity markets, operating reactors already amortized economically and financially over a period of 30, 40 or 50 years is in fact far from being indifferent to the competitiveness of the whole French economy.

Likewise, France has built a nuclear industry which constitutes one of its assets in world competition, represents a source of national jobs and the future of which we must focus so that it can offer the country, when the time comes and if necessary, efficient solutions for our energy supply.

The choice of a technology for producing electricity has always been of critical importance and great difficulty. We saw this clearly in our country at the end of the 1960s, where we had to make a heartbreaking review of our choices and abandon the graphite-gas sector in favor of pressurized water reactors. Certainly, the question of the lifespan of nuclear power plants deserves our full attention.

France has been engaged since the beginning of the year in the preparation of the draft orientation law on energy, provided for by the law of February 10, 2000 relating to the modernization and development of the public electricity service.

As part of the calendar for the national debate organized by the Government, this Parliamentary Office report aims to make a contribution to the thinking of Parliament and our fellow citizens on the identification of deadlines relating to our nuclear power fleet and on the choice of technologies for its renewal.


To read (or fly over the density) here: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/rap-off/i0832.asp

.pdf Version: https://www.econologie.com/duree-de-vie- ... -4339.html
Last edited by Christophe the 14 / 03 / 11, 17: 54, 1 edited once.
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 14/03/11, 16:42

The lifespan is until the major accident as in Japan !!
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 14/03/11, 16:52

Yeah, no different from a car in fact ... You drove it to breakage, and someone can always restore it to think of doing another 200 unless you have pressed too much on the "mushroom ".
No different either from a soccer match:
- two halves (since we do not count extra time or penalty shootout until they have taken place ...)
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 14/03/11, 17:55

Roh we're playing trolls !!
Did you simply click on one of the 2 links?

You should because it is technically and economically interesting (obviously I haven't read everything ...). There are really interesting diagrams ...

.pdf added on the site: https://www.econologie.com/duree-de-vie- ... -4339.html
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 14/03/11, 23:11

I quickly read this 9 year old block of official information from 2002 !!
on the lifetime and especially for the EPR:
In the end, thethe probability of core melting is thus 3,6.10-7 /reactor.year, excluding aggressions, an improvement of a factor of 15 compared to the N4 level. All internal aggressions taken into account, it is equal to 10-6 / reactor.year and 10-5 / reactor.year including external aggressions.

Another line of defense, protection against the consequences of a serious accident, if it occurs despite reinforced prevention measures, is also improved. A specific device called “core catcher” allows the recovery of the core in the event of fusion in a special device, so as to protect the concrete. Finally, the risks of explosion of the hydrogen which would be formed due to the very high temperatures corresponding to the fusion, are avoided thanks to the implantation of recombiners.


So again, given the events in Japan, this probability is certainly underestimated and will take a kick up !!
In fact, one chance in a million (which was one in a billion before Chernobyl) makes repeated explosions in Japan impossible !!
MEPs absorb this type of statement without questioning it !!!
Finally, it is not only a question of lifespan but above all of future reactors and of comparisons between the different possibilities.

Technological barriers are almost impossible to overcome because we do not work miracles!

First of all, most of the materials capable of withstanding temperatures of around 1000 ° C do not yet exist ...
In total, billions of € will have to be invested in R&D relating to reactors for 2035 ....


Finally, strictly nothing on other possible energies, their research funding and their comparative advantages, nuclear is the one and only energy solution !!

From these billions we could take a few tens of millions to develop cheap heating in winter using the storage of summer solar heat underground for winter as already demonstrated at dslc.ca:
http://www.dlsc.ca/borehole.htm
http://www.dlsc.ca/DLSC_Brochure_f.pdf
by developing the drilling of inexpensive holes !!

The more I think, the more it is possible to realize it individually, in the form of an improved Canadian well !!

I invite all those who already have a Canadian well to heat it with the summer sun summer for the winter !!
If I find a cheap auger I try it at home !!

It is appalling how systematically this possibility is stifled.

And yet more pollution in perpetuity, no melting of the heart, no plutonium !!
Last edited by dedeleco the 15 / 03 / 11, 00: 18, 1 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 14/03/11, 23:17

dedeleco wrote:And yet more pollution in perpetuity, no melting of the heart, no plutonium !!


Yes, but that's not how it works in "our" system ... :|
0 x

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Majestic-12 [Bot] and 285 guests