Could nuclear power plants last as long as the Hoover Dam?

Increasingly dependable and emitting few greenhouse gases, the U.S. fleet of nuclear power plants will likely run for another 50 or even 70 years before it is retired -- long past the 40-year life span planned decades ago -- according to industry executives, regulators and scientists.

With nuclear providing always-on electricity that will become more cost-effective if a price is placed on heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions, utilities have found it is now viable to replace turbines or lids that have been worn down by radiation exposure or wear. Many engineers are convinced that nearly any plant parts, most of which were not designed to be replaced, can be swapped out.

"We think we can replace almost every component in a nuclear power plant," said Jan van der Lee, director of the Materials Ageing Institute (MAI), a nuclear research facility inaugurated this week in France and run by the state-owned nuclear giant EDF.

"We don't want to wait until something breaks," he said. By identifying components that are wearing down and replacing them, he said, suddenly nuclear plants will find that "technically, there is no age limit."

Indeed, as U.S. regulators begin considering the extended operations of nuclear plants -- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects the first application for an 80-year license could come within five years or less -- perhaps the largest lingering question is one of basic science: How do heavy doses of radiation, over generations, fundamentally alter materials like steel and concrete?

"It's taken many years for us to understand the problem," said Gary Was, the director of the University of Michigan's Phoenix Energy Institute and an expert in aging materials. "Thirty years ago, we didn't have techniques to see these changes."

Until recently, such research has not been a priority. But within the past few years, the Department of Energy began a program looking at "long-term operations," as it is known in the industry. And provisions in the Senate's climate bill call for DOE to increase these investigations in the hope of extending plant lives "substantially beyond the first license extension period."

DOE collaborates in this research with France's MAI and the U.S.-based Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a nonprofit funded by many nuclear utilities. U.S. leadership in the field is natural, given the sheer age of America's reactors, many of which are already coming close to exceeding their intended operating lives.

The oldest commercial plants in the United States reached their 40th anniversary this year, and the average plant has operated for 30 years. Already, more than half of the nation's more than 100 reactors have seen their initial licenses extended for an additional two decades. Nearly all the country's plants are expected to eventually win such extensions.

As companies have encountered few hurdles toward ensuring 60 years of operation, according to one 2007 survey, a majority of executives say that it is very likely their plants will operate for 80 years or longer. It is a fairly natural progression, according to Was.

"If they last till 60, maybe they can last to 80," Was said. "Heck, maybe 100?"

7 Comments

1. 1. eco-steve 06:19 PM 11/23/09

   Extending the life of nuclear reactors requires that there would be enough uranium to supply them for that extended period. That cuts out building new long life reactors, for that would drastically reduce the reserves of uranium from 70 to 30 years. I suspect that such projects are mainly devised to improve return on investment in the actual plant for private shareholders.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. coco77 07:21 PM 11/23/09

   Looking at how difficult is to dismantle a thermonuclear power plant, I wonder how will they replace internal elements that as stated in the article were no designed to be replaced and at what cost it will be done.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Quinn the Eskimo 08:44 PM 11/26/09

   How long a reactor will last is definitive: Until it fails.
   
   In *very* few cases; one day longer.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Wayne Williamson 02:44 PM 11/27/09

   Nuclear needs to be apart of the overall power generation for the USA and other countries. It may only contribute 20 percent but it along with others are necessary.
   
   To eco-steve..there are newer types of plants that actually will produce more fuel than they use. Interesting thing about fission and fission by products.
   
   What concerns me (being from Florida) is the huge cracks that happened with the Crystal River Power Plant when they had to cut a big hole in the containment structure for replacing equipment. How do we prevent something like this happening...was it there all along...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. bertwindon 08:04 AM 1/10/10

   And still the Property developers swarm like flies to extend the demand. How "Green" is that ?
   It's about time Scientists - too much to hope for the "nuclear industry" - woke-up and asked themselves just where this "Yes sir !" attitude towards anyone with money, is leading.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. bertwindon in reply to eco-steve 08:06 AM 1/10/10

   Energy is energy. We all use it. If you want some divi. the procedure must be quite simple. Buy shares - or is it against your religion to actually work ?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. bertwindon in reply to coco77 08:08 AM 1/10/10

   Their is no such thing as a "thermonuclear power plant, so you don't need to worry about it.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this