• kireotick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not economically viable to build new, yes. But to run existing ones until they need major renovations?

    Like they already built the damn things. It would be wasteful to just shut them down, especially if replaced with coal and gas.

    Or could you provide me with some sources on why running existing nuclear plants is too expensive?

    • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 months ago

      Most of our plants were already fairly old and major overhauls would’ve been necessary.

      In 2000 we had plans for a nuclear exit already, intending to phase them out until 2015. In 2010 the government decided to keep some running. IIRC they did that in part so they could shut down coal plants instead.

      Then Fukushima happened and we went full panic mode, deciding to shut all of them down ASAP. Then the Ukraine war got reignited and the timeline got slightly stretched out a little again for practical reasons.

      The last three reactors got shut down last April, about eight years later than the 2000 plan intended.

      • kireotick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Then we agree, nice. I don’t know the costs of those repairs so I’ll take your word for it.