Actual inspection of the reactor and all critical parts of this nuclear power plant should be done and then decision made whether the plant can continue operations and for how long. 50 years may not be the actual lifespan of a nuclear power plant.
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.