How do you know that? Are you an expert on nuclear power technology? I at least see absolutely no reason why proper maintenance wouldn’t allow reactors to work infinitely. That’s kind of the definition of “proper maintenance”.
There are several reasons: Those reactors were planned for a runtime of 30-40 years. And you can’t prolong those runtimes by “proper maintenance” due to some hard facts introduced by the radioactivity. The steel in the containment & pressure vessel will get radiation damage with time. That is something you can monitor - but the pressure vessel is the reactor and if that is damaged, you can’t simply replace it. So there is a hard limit on runtime. You might get a few years more out of them, you might be lucky, but that really is not a safe way to run a reactor.
You can take a look at what that actually means when you look at France: They have build nearly all of their reactors between 1977 and 1994 and that means that most of their reactors have reached those 40 years they were designed for. France totally failed to start building replacement reactors - Flamanville III is not enough and was extremely expensive and way late. And they need to run those reactors - if there are problems with too many reactors, they have not enough capacity. We already saw that a while ago when too many of those old reactors developed cracks. So if there is a big issue, french politics need to ensure that there is enough electricity generation. And that political pressure is something that is not compatible with a safe way of running nuclear reactors, esp. when you’re running old reactors.
How do you know that? Are you an expert on nuclear power technology? I at least see absolutely no reason why proper maintenance wouldn’t allow reactors to work infinitely. That’s kind of the definition of “proper maintenance”.
There are several reasons: Those reactors were planned for a runtime of 30-40 years. And you can’t prolong those runtimes by “proper maintenance” due to some hard facts introduced by the radioactivity. The steel in the containment & pressure vessel will get radiation damage with time. That is something you can monitor - but the pressure vessel is the reactor and if that is damaged, you can’t simply replace it. So there is a hard limit on runtime. You might get a few years more out of them, you might be lucky, but that really is not a safe way to run a reactor.
You can take a look at what that actually means when you look at France: They have build nearly all of their reactors between 1977 and 1994 and that means that most of their reactors have reached those 40 years they were designed for. France totally failed to start building replacement reactors - Flamanville III is not enough and was extremely expensive and way late. And they need to run those reactors - if there are problems with too many reactors, they have not enough capacity. We already saw that a while ago when too many of those old reactors developed cracks. So if there is a big issue, french politics need to ensure that there is enough electricity generation. And that political pressure is something that is not compatible with a safe way of running nuclear reactors, esp. when you’re running old reactors.
Ontario has this issue and we are building SMRs for this reason.