I am quite sure that money for energy research grew in general during the Soc.Dem governments (1994-2006) as energy departments at universities has - in my experience - been growing during this time.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

I don't like the current nuclear plants, for diverse reasons, but cutting research money when we know we're facing an energy crises is irresponsible AND dumb.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

Durability of inspection/refueling vessel hatches which are de-soldered/re-soldered in a PWR (and were designed of a number of such weldings).

Other parts (pumps, turbines, etc...) are less directly subjected to radiation and upgraded during the lifetime of the plant anyway.

If the vessel becomes cracked or corroded, it is conceivable to manufacture a replacement part to the initial specification in shape and alloy. But the cost is high because extensive verifications will be needed to demonstrate it matches the original. A US plant with boron corrosion in the upper part of the vessel (where the control rods inserted) was nonetheless repaired that way a few years ago (a 10m steel bell was made to replace the upper half of the vessel). I don't know if that was made because it was really economical, or because it was less approval hassle to restart a plant with still a lot of capital amortization to go...

So essentially, if there is a decent control body overseeing security and maintenance, it is not really an issue. But the total cost may be more than upgrading to a new plant earlier (of course, life extension is always less if you factor in a full clean decommissionning of the old plant, which may be "provisioned" in the accounts but that remains virtual and makes interests until you spend it for no short term return)

Pierre

Good maintenance, and better technology and skills, the TMI accident (which jump-started the entire science of man-machine interaction) and the subsequent global (minus Soviet Union) safety experience feedback programs mean the stations are much safer today than they were when they were brand new, by orders of magnitude really. And it will stay that way until they are shut down because it becomes to expensive to maintain the stringent safety levels.

By the way, most stations were originally constructed with a 40 year life in mind. The German 32 years is an entirely political number. Today 60 years is the accepted conventional wisdom for light water reactors, but I wouldn't really be surprised if the newer units (meaning those built in the 80's and later) will run for 70 years.

The British gas reactors are a sad exception, they are all likely to close within a decade and a half due to extensive cracking in their graphite moderators. Good thing for Paris that they abandoned their domestic gas reactor program and instead chose a technology developed by the US Navy.  

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

The tea kettles work, and they work great. You can even use the waste heat to heat homes. If someone invents something better and cheaper I'll be the first on the bandwagon.

But in spite of 30 years of trying to find alternatives, we are pretty much at the same place as we started, except that wind power has moved from exotic niche to a viable source of competitive power and that the things the alternatives were supposed to replace also have become a lot better.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

This phenomenon is more commonly described as heat.  If you could find a way to talk the particles into flying all in the same direction, then all that energy could be harnessed and you would be famous and rich.  Good luck.

But anyway, comparing the steam engines of old to modern steam turbines is disingenious.  At upper temperatures of maybe 350°C, the Clausius-Rankine-Cycle is exactly what the doctor prescribed.  Now if development hadn't all but ceased 20 years ago, we could have reactors with upper temperatures in excess of 750°C and would long have switched to Brayton-Cycle gas turbines.  sigh  That's what you get for listening to people with insufficient education in the physical sciences...

This recent table fits with my experience of all-inclusive production costs in various countries, with various regulatory regimes (including some where wind has to pay "balancing costs", i.e. pay for its intermittence and unpredictability):

Wind is currently cheaper than gas-fired power, and would be cheaper than coal-fired if its externalities were taken into account. Using the French example, the most favorable for nuclear, I'd agree that it is slightly more expensive than nuclear, but we're still talking about the same ball park.

All network operators agree that the cost of incorporating intermittent wind power into the network is essentially nil until it reaches 20% of production, a goal we should thus strive for without delay, irrespective of what we think about how the other 80% should be produced. This is proven in the regulatory framework of the UK, where balancing costs are quite expensive, and where utilities are happy to give PPAs to wind power plants whereby they take a small remuneration for dealing with that balancing issue via smart management of their portfolio of assets.

Network operators - and not just the hydro-rich ones in Scandinavia) also say that moderate investments in the network would allow wind to reach 30-40% of production.

As for electricity demand, I fail to understand your point. Conservation is not the same as "not using electricity". Are you saying that there is no way we could have the same goods or services by using less electricity? That we will never ever improve the energy efficiency of lamps, appliances, or industrial processes? Oddly enough, industry, which has a real (monetary) motivation to do so, manages to reduce its energy use year in and year out, without any apparent impact on thei ability to manufacture aluminium, steel and the rest.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes