PowerSwitch

If a nuclear power station was run at half its generating capacity, would its operational lifetime be twice as long? Or would its operational capability degrade at the same rate over time, however it was used.

I am thinking that a few nukes would be useful for specific purposes, because their output is so controllable. These power stations could even be reserved for these specific purposes (mainly industrial manufacturing of essential items and commodities), and not for use by the general consumer, who would have to make do with renewables/microgeneration and intelligent demand control.

Does a piece of steel corode more slowly if it lies unused?

Mothballing expensive plant is economic nonsense. You have to get the maximum return on investment as fast as possible.

biffvernon wrote:Does a piece of steel corode more slowly if it lies unused?

Seriously, this is idiotic. There are corrosion protection element present in the critical element.

But when you reduce power, you reduce neutron fluence on critical elements. The lifetime of these critical elements (at least 60yrs) is limited by the cumulated neutron fluence, and therefor power. So you could increase lifetime. But that would be ridiculous because you're concrete building has an estimated lifetime of about 100yrs...

Andy Hunt wrote:If a nuclear power station was run at half its generating capacity, would its operational lifetime be twice as long?

Yes, at least the nuclear components. The important aspect is full-power-hours not the actual age. Note the recent extensions to Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B are at 70% full power.