End of live would have come sooner or later anyway.
But why take the risk of fission reactors becoming targets in a war?
But why take the risk of fission reactors becoming targets in a war?
Reactors in the US, on which the German designs are based, have already received their extensions to 80 years.
Experts see no particular problems in extending that to 100 years or even further.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-pla...
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-long-can-a-nuclear-plan...
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re...
Fission reactors are not very useful targets in war. In Ukraine, their fleet of nuclear reactors are what's keeping the electricity grid running. And they are building new ones. In war time.
They are extremely tough targets, and fairly easy to defend.
That's what International Atomic Energy Agency's (UN agency in charge of civilian nuclear) boss said about it: "Director General Grossi reiterated his deep concern about the apparent increased use of drones near nuclear power plants since early this year, saying such weaponry posed a clear risk to nuclear safety and security"
"any military attack on a nuclear site – with or without drones – jeopardizes nuclear safety and must stop immediately"
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-303-iae...
What concrete risks are those?
And of course the IEAE is concerned about nuclear safety. That's their job.
IMHO your "They are extremely tough targets, and fairly easy to defend" is quite different from what I quoted.