I’m all for nuclear power. I would probably prefer smaller modular reactors that rather than the 1000 MW variety though.
I’ve was involved with naval nuclear for a long time mostly on the chemistry side, so I know about the inspections and rigorous testing in keeping a plant running. In reality if everything goes right a plant should be good for 100 years.
It’s just when things don’t go right that you have to consider. What comes to mind is the PWR Davis-Besse plant in Ohio that had been operating 30 years or so.
During an inspection they found a corroded spot on top of the reactor head with less than 1/2” left before breakthrough to primary coolant. Boric acid had been dripping on the head from a leak above. It had it’s inspections that didn’t catch it for a long time.
You have to do a good, honest cost/benefit analysis when your looking at extending plant life.
During a late night chat with one of the mechanics at the plant I was working at, he told me that he was the one who found that "problem." According to him, ALL of the carbon steel was gone and the only thing left was the clad!!!! He was a contract employee working an outage and was NOT an employee at Davis-Besse.
It looks like to me that they had been having problems for a while but were sweeping it under the rug to get the outages done and the plant back on line. Plus you don't have that much going on with metal being corroded and not seeing it in other ways.
Flash ahead a few years and the plant I was at was having primary leakage. I was involved as a supervisor trying to figure out what was going on. We had someone else on the management team that was from Davis-Besse and I always wondered why he didn't recognize IMMEDIATELY what we were seeing based on him being involved at Davis-Besse. I always assumed they cleaned house there and I assumed he was one of the casualties.