In the eighties, I designed specialized software used by maintenance departments of three large nuclear stations in Ontario and thus became aware of the ongoing maintenance costs for NPPs. The capital and labour budget for these departments was relatively high at that time and it could be even higher now.
New power plants use more concrete than the earlier generations. They are built to withstand aircraft crashes, earthquakes, harsh weather, and material fatigue. In addition to the original construction, the continued operation and ageing require frequent and stringent structure monitoring and periodic repairs.
Unlike mechanical components or electrical equipment that can be replaced, the concrete reactor structures cannot be replaced. When eventually decommisioned, not too much of the original construction can be salvaged. That's one reason why we have now so many aging nuclear power plants. Design life of most existing 2nd generation NPPs was typically 30 to 40 years. However, economic benefits for utilities resulting from extending plant service life (with 60 or more years being a quoted target), means that existing concrete structures often will have to meet their functional and performance requirements for a time period significantly greater than considered during their initial design. Although the U.S. limits initial commercial power reactor licenses to a 40-year period, regulations allow these licenses to be renewed for an additional period of 20 years. Presently 437 NPP units are in operation in 37 countries, many of them nearing the end of their life. It will be much harder and more expensive to get rid of those structures than of the wind turbines.
OMG, are you telling me things degrade and rot over time, things like concrete and metal? Amazing.
I think you will be very depressed to hear than that wind & solar farms use significantly more concrete and metal just due to how incredibly large they need to be. So it seems like this will be more of a problem with wind & solar then nuclear.
By the way, I don't see how it will be much more difficult to tear down a very contained concrete structure in one location vs removing several 100, or even 1000, concrete foundations built for wind turbines over several 1000s of acres. Once the nuclear material is removed, you can use a controlled detonation to destroy the structure and then remove the rubble fairly easily. Also, damage to the environment by heavy machinery used in the removal will be located to one place that will be relatively near or in a developed area already.
With a wind farm, you need to remove the foundations one at a time, which will take much longer. Damage to the ground and environment from heavy machinery during the removal will be much more wide spread as well. Also, due to the size of these farms, they need to be in rural areas to be economical, which means this damage will be on undeveloped lands.
