[cube]

I think you are drastically overstating the impact of the "30 year life." That 30 years was a number picked, well 30 years ago, but probably has little current meaning. These plants undergo constant maintenance, like all plants, and many parts of them are very new. Now, might some parts need to be replaced in the future? Of course, but I'm betting many of these plants will run for 60 years, not because they have to but because they are still safe to operate.

Do you have any links to back this up?

I have heard of applications for a 10 year life extension being approved.
So we can squeeze 40 years out of a plant that was originally meant to run for only 30.
I'm not saying your claim is completely out of the question.
My vision of PO is where engineering specifications get "revised".
*delicate cough*
to save $$$
In particular roadways but that's a different topic.

[cube]

Pretty much the same way 60 year old airplanes continue to fly.

You could not pay me to go on board a 60 year old airplane.
I'm very pro-nuke but even I would feel a bit "uncomfortable" with letting a nuke plant run for 60 years when it's original design specification limited it to only 30.

What about these new 3rd generation nuclear plants being built today?
(the EPR and AP1000)
They are meant to have a 60 year service life.
Do you propose that we operate them for a 100 years?
A lot can happen between now and then...for all we know the genetically engineered apes could be running the planet by then!

[Ludi]

Texas citizens recently stopped construction of 8 coal plants. I wonder if they will prefer nuke plants in place of the coal plants? But I think only one new reactor is planned for Texas, possibly 2.

[cube]

The problem with aging plants isn't fuel -- spent rods can be replaced -- but embrittlement. Fissioning atoms throw off neutrons that gradually weaken the steel containment vessel. Retrofitting old plants to bring them up to today's safety standards rarely makes sense economically.

safety standards be damned!
I agree with TreeFarmer, lets run these nuke plants for 60 years until they fall apart.
Who cares if the steel conatainment vessel ruptures......that's what the concrete barrier is for right? *wink*

...Link These will not be built. We are in a spiraling debt crisis and banks don't have money for such a project. The government?

Maybe the government will create the Fannie Mae equivalent for nuclear power to encourage more construction?

[mommy22]

Isn't Texas going to build a huge wind farm? And isn't T. Boone Pickens going to build a wind farm of huge proportions there?

[shortonoil]

cube said:

for all we know the genetically engineered apes could be running the planet by then!

What do you mean they “could” be. Been to Washington lately?
"The Senior White House staff is living proof that Pentecostal mongoloids regularly cohabit with chimpanzees, frogs and Norway rats" -Dr. Myron Kalbfuss, Biology Department, Stanford University

[Ludi]

Coal plants are being canceled as a result of citizen concern for global warming.

Partly that and also because of the local pollution issue. Most of the coal plants in Texas are clustered in one region, and really stink up the place, apparently.

[Twilight]

Nuclear power plant life can vary considerably. The Oil Drum: Nuclear Britain

As you can see, some Magnox lasted less than 30 years, but most lasted around 40. A couple ran for nearly half a century. It is very likely the AGRs will make it well past 30 years with life extensions, although their availability has been disappointing recently. But it is an academic issue, it just means the US has 20 years to act instead of the 10 years the UK has. It means nothing without a replacement programme.

[Starvid]

People tend to forget we have 104 nuclear power reactors currently in operation and MOST of them are near the end of their "service life".

We need to build a hundred nuclear power reactors just to stay even.

That's just not true. Half of the reactors went online in the 70's and the second half went online after 1979. They have 60 year life times. You do the math.

[Starvid]

Texas citizens recently stopped construction of 8 coal plants. I wonder if they will prefer nuke plants in place of the coal plants? But I think only one new reactor is planned for Texas, possibly 2.

Last time I checked they were planning something like 8-10 new reactors in Texas alone.

Edit: Checked my facts. 7 reactors are being planned. 1 EPR in Amarillo, 2 ESBWR's in Victoria County, 2 APWR's at Comanche Peak and 2 ABWR's at the South Texas Project. Should be a total net output of about 10,500-11,000 MW.

[cube]

People tend to forget we have 104 nuclear power reactors currently in operation and MOST of them are near the end of their "service life".

We need to build a hundred nuclear power reactors just to stay even.

That's just not true. Half of the reactors went online in the 70's and the second half went online after 1979. They have 60 year life times. You do the math.

I disagree they do NOT have a 60 year service life.
The newer 3rd generation reactors being built today such as the EPR and the AP1000 have been designed to have a 60 year life.
The older "2nd gen" plants of the 1970's and 80's were NOT.

I have never heard of an application for a service life extension beyond 10 years. There are some nuclear plants today, that are still in operation only because it was approved for a service life extension. Time is running short.
The problem with the McCain plan is it is too conservative. We need double that.

[Starvid]

People tend to forget we have 104 nuclear power reactors currently in operation and MOST of them are near the end of their "service life".

We need to build a hundred nuclear power reactors just to stay even.

That's just not true. Half of the reactors went online in the 70's and the second half went online after 1979. They have 60 year life times. You do the math.

I disagree they do NOT have a 60 year service life.
The newer 3rd generation reactors being built today such as the EPR and the AP1000 have been designed to have a 60 year life.
The older "2nd gen" plants of the 1970's and 80's were NOT.

I have never heard of an application for a service life extension beyond 10 years. There are some nuclear plants today, that are still in operation only because it was approved for a service life extension. Time is running short.
The problem with the McCain plan is it is too conservative. We need double that.

The plants (at least in Sweden) were designed for a 40 year life. Conservative engineering and progress in material sciences means the industry believes they will on average run 60 years. Sure, some will just make it for 50 years, but others will do it for 70. And I wouldn't be surprised if the EPR and AP1000's built today will run for 80 years, if further breakthroughs in material sciences are made.

Hell, even some of the oldest plants will run for 60 years. For example, the Vermont Yankee started operating in 1972, has a licence to run until 2012 and is seeking a 20 year life extension. Almost all current US reactors has got, are seeking or will seek the 20 year extension over the original 40 year licence.

The situation is different in Britain with the gas reactors falling to pieces, but LWR's hold together much better.

[countrymomma]

This is why I am a doomer. We depend on electricity for civilization--see Duncan's Olduvai Gorge theory. Everything that makes the country modern--security, computers, high technology, systems management, communication--depend on electricity and the grid is a piece of crap. Just look at the ugly crappy dangling wires hanging from old greasy wooden poles outside your office window. What's underground is probably just as ugly.

I've mentioned before that my husband is an electrician. He's sent out fairly frequently to dig up lines that are run in pipe underground. When he comes home from these jobs it is very rare that he isn't griping about whoever pulled the wires. Too many wires crammed into pipes that are too small, the outer wires with insulation stripped off by someone forcing them in so they don't have to pay to put down bigger pipes, wires that aren't heavy enough to handle the loads.

Keep in mind this is for commercial jobs, but this is an example that the age of the equipment is not the only factor to consider when trying to estimate how long it will be able to get the juice to you. The guy at the electric company is as likely as anyone to try to cut corners to keep prices down & rush the job when someone's constantly calling from an office to cuss them for not having the work done last week.

Very interesting thread.

[dohboi]

Does anyone really think that in the recession we're in and the depression we're heading toward demand for electricity will be increasing? Soon, no one will be able to afford flat screen TVs nor the juice it takes to run them.

One thing in the article that most can get on board with is that the transmission system needs an overhaul. But we need to have an idea of what kind of system we are planning for both in terms of load and source.

The cost of new plants is becoming rapidly too expensive as prices for all materials continue to skyrocket.

monetary roadblocks to new nuclear plants

Mostly most of us will be learning to get by on a whole lot less electricity and on less reliable energy. Welcome to the PO world and the third world nation the US is rapidly becoming.

[shortonoil]

Mostly most of us will be learning to get by on a whole lot less electricity and on less reliable energy. Welcome to the PO world and the third world nation the US is rapidly becoming.

This is a variable that has not even been considered, yet it will become the prevailing factor in electrical generation over the next decade. The Available Energy model predicts, from energy considerations alone, that by 2025 the average American will have a standard of living commensurable with his predecessor of 1915. (I’ll post the data and analysis of this determination in the Available Energy thread in the near future). Our electrical power usage is not likely to grow significantly over the next few years.

Our transition to an electrical society will take at least 40 years, in the mean time, pressure on demand will be going down as the economy retracts strongly.

[burtonridr]

Our transition to an electrical society will take at least 40 years, in the mean time, pressure on demand will be going down as the economy retracts strongly.

This transition is assuming we have a means of keeping the current infrastructure intact.

By that I mean, trucks to transport people to service power lines, transformers, etc. Wire to repair lines that break during wind storms, new poles to replace ones that break, new parts and pieces to replace old worn out ones within the generators, etc...

[shortonoil]

burtonridr said:

This transition is assuming we have a means of keeping the current infrastructure intact.

By that I mean, trucks to transport people to service power lines, transformers, etc. Wire to repair lines that break during wind storms, new poles to replace ones that break, new parts and pieces to replace old worn out ones within the generators, etc...

Undoubtedly, some out laying areas will experience black outs or total disconnection from the grid. It is doubtful, however, that the entire grid will disappear in the next 17 years. Centralized schools, much of the medical infrastructure, the majority of the trucking industry, all the airlines, most of the banking system and a large percentage of high energy intensive industries will close over that period.

Unemployment will hit 50% or more. The entire civilization will not collapse, just many of its institutions will shrink to almost nothing or become artifacts of the past. We will not lose our entire energy supply, just 35% of our most useful energy supply. Many companies, institutions and locals will be put on the PO extinction list.

Let it be noted, if the federal government does not take this seriously in the very near future, they will also be on that list.