• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    i’d be ok with paying those costs for nuclear. Not for coal.

    Nuclear should be ran until EOL, then ideally built back up again (but that’s not happening unfortunately)

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      In Ohio this costs an average residential electricity customer $95/year they have to pay extra on top of their electrical bill.

      Nuclear should be ran until EOL, then ideally built back up again

      Arguably it has in Ohio. In 2002 a football sized hole was discovered in the top of pressure vessel eaten away by the caustic cooling water:

      They bought a replacement from a mothballed nuke plant.

      The plant was supposed to be EOL in 2017, but was extended to 2037.

      At the same time Republican lawmakers in Ohio gave oil and gas companies full control over where wells are place, but put rules in allowing the blocking of solar and wind installations. source

      Nuclear should be ran until EOL,

      then ideally built back up again

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Arguably it has in Ohio. In 2002 a football sized hole was discovered in the top of pressure vessel eaten away by the caustic cooling water:

        nice.

        The plant was supposed to be EOL in 2017, but was extended to 2037.

        this was pretty common with 30 year EOL plants, being extended to 50 years, with extra maintenance. France has done this almost unilaterally, and skill issued pretty hard with maintenance as of recent, but that’s just a skill issue.