You do have a good point. New plants today have a higher capacity than the older ones but I think MOST people are unaware of how serious this situation is.

IMHO we are in a crisis state today.
here's the proof: The above map shows we have 55 nuclear reactors that have been in operation for 20 to 29 years. Nuclear plants back in those days were only meant to last ("service life") for 30 years. An application for a service life extension can be applied for some reactors to give us more time. Assume a new reactor with a single standard of 1,000 MW, then we'd need to deliver 43 new nuclear reactors in 10 years just to replace the first wave of old plants that will be retired. The 2nd wave (10 years) would require 51 reactors. The last 2 reactors on the map we'll just ignore.
So basically we have to bring online 94 nuclear reactors within 20 years just to stay even. If we "fast track" the project today by working on 7 reactors simultaneously then the first batch will be brought online in 5 years. Every year after that a new batch of 6 or 7 reactors would need to be brought online for the next 15 years straight. Assuming it takes 5 years to deliver a reactor, at the height of construction, 30 or 35 nuclear reactors would need to be under construction simultaneously.
*That's not happening*

Yes, that does seem to be rather unlikely at the moment.

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.


TF

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

Very wise. I'm sure you appreciate the dangers of monoculture. If an unexpected design specific failure mode crops up 10 years down the line and all your nukes are the same model - your whole nuclear power supply has to be shut down to fix it.

If the above ratio holds you only lose 25% of your output while the problem is fixed.

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.

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!

The containment vessel is immense and difficult to cut up and cart away. The article suggests $400 million, a major cost. 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?

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.

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.

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

Coal plants are being canceled as a result of citizen concern for global warming. It seems people are willing to reduce their electric use if given a chance. Link and here another link

The latter is a wiki-style clearinghouse of canceled projects.

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?

cube said:
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

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.