A real simple question, how many 1GW reactors must we start in a week year round to reach that goal with nukes? In the last 5 years 12 new reactors have gone online. This year the number of startups vs shutdowns will be at least -10. As the time to build is 5 to 10 years we better switch to fast gear on building new reactors, and soon. On another note, where are you going to place these new monsters? Two of the big players, Japan and Germany, are out of the game, China has put brakes on its ambitious program, France has overcapacity and all in all resistance is building almost everywhere. I know it's painful to watch as your holy cow is dying, but as they say, don't fight the markets.
If it comes down to a choice between having the lights go out or adding a lot of nuke capacity, "we" will find a way to crank out reactors like they were Liberty ships. Of that, I have zero doubt.
That is if you don't factor in 3-5 year period of usefull life after which the whole expensive battery has to be replaced. Compare this with 40-60 years for nuclear plants. Well, wind turbines are even worse. In the first commercial deployment in the UK half of the turbines broke down in the first year and the gains from energy produced were consumed by repair costs.
Do some research! Mean average age of shutdown reactors in the world is 22 years. Mean average age of worlds reactors is 26 years!!! They are getting old. And when they get older the risks increase proportionally.
I did and looking at the WNA database here: http://world-nuclear.org/NuclearDatabase/Advanced.aspx?id=27246 of the power reactors built after 1970 in the US, eight have been shutdown and 103 are operating. I don't know what you think your figures show or even where they came from. Extremely dubious claim. There have been many improvements made to safety and operational efficiency based on experience.
Read : The nuclear industry status report 2010/2011. If in doubt, check IAEA and do the counting yourself. The US has indeed very ageing fleet of reactors and instead of continuing their licenses, like in the case of Vermont Yankee, they should be shut down for the most part. That hardly happens before the US sheeps wake up and that hardly happens before something goes seriously wrong in San Onofre, Indian Point, Davis Besse or or or.
I appreciate that you like nuclear very, very much. And I won't bother to critique your posts (okay, just a wee bit -- the US is not the world, when someone writes a paragraph explaining what costs aren't included in nuclear cost/kwh estimates, don't just repost cost estimates that exclude those very items, etc.) But at the end of the day, your posts are accomplish absolutely nothing and aren't worth the energy that you're expending to write them. Nuclear (fission) could not be more dead internationally, and it's simply not coming back. You may not like that fact, but that's the reality of Fukushima. When the Bonneville power administration can get 150% of its needs from renewables (which they are) after shutting down their nuclear and coal plants people instantly recognize that there just isn't a driving need for nuclear. So enjoy your typing, but it's the equivalent of screaming into a hurricane.
Another case of somebody simply not wanting to hear. The IEA and CCC cost estimates include decommissioning and waste management. But lets not address what somebody is saying, lets set up a straw man and attack that instead eh? Now that's just not true. It will make no tangible difference to most of the major nuclear nations other than a brief (and justified) pause to reconsider safety. Russia, China, India, Sth Korea, France will all continue their nuclear power programs with very little change. Of the nations new to nuclear, UAE and Turkey will continue, Vietnam will most likely continue, probably Bangladesh. Indonesia has said it will not change it's intentions but it may be some time before anything happens there as they are not very good at organizing anything much. And the UK will very likely go ahead because they have no other option if they are to meet their (now legally binding and commendably ambitious) emissions targets - read the CCC report. Do not mistake what happens in Japan and 2 or 3 western European nations for the whole world. [ Do not mistake what happens in the Bonneville power administration for the whole world. There are many different circumstances of climate, geography, fossil fuel resources and political economy. As I said before, the bottom line is this. The need to get emissions down is urgent. Nuclear supplies about 14% of the world's electricity, hydro about 16%. They are the major players for low emissions. Techno-solar (wind, solar, wave etc) about 3%. If the latter do no prove themselves on large scale in the next decade, as the climate problem worsens and fossil fuel resources deplete, nuclear will go to the top of the list because there will be no other choice.