Christophe wrote:chatelot16 wrote:what is the point of dismantling? when the power plants are working they are waterproof ... as long as they are maintained they will stay eatnche!
is it not easier to continue to maintain the old power stations, than to dismantle it to be obliged to build other structure to contain the waste, even more voluminous than the power station in its normal statechatelot16 wrote:the question arises for the oldest low power nuclear power plants which are useless given their low power ... but even useless it seems to me more economical to maintain them than to dismantle them
and it seems that I am right: the cost of dismantling the oldest plant dissuades from dismantling the following ones ...
Uh not in working order but in "no leak" condition ... it's not the same!
Just sink a sarcophagus and seal it for hundreds of years! A few remote geiger sensors, a few technicians to monitor this and it is set ... infinitely cheaper and risky, even over 1000 years, than dismantling!
Easy to do for a plant that does not leak when we know that we are (re) doing it for Chernobyl full of leaks !!!
Well no! If the power stations were "planned" to be dismantled, it is precisely that a certain time we no longer know how to keep them waterproof without having to ablate larger and larger pieces, bulky items that cannot be handled without contaminating everything, air, water, soil, personnel, environment, etc. The carpet will never be large to hide everything under it ... .
All the sarcophagi are there only to hide the misery ..... the time to pass on the baby to the next generations who will have to quit to avoid dying of it. For these irresponsible dedé_éfeux, it is especially not question of investing in the security of the population when their debt is abysmal and their extra terrestrial economic model every day a little closer to the abyss.