90 comments on Daddy, will the lights be on at Christmas?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
90 comments on Daddy, will the lights be on at Christmas?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
That will almost offset the UK's Nuclear Cliff.
And let us not forget about the Wind's intermittency.
Actually, it more than offsets that at a 40% or greater capacity factor that might be expected for offshore wind. The UK has wisely avoided pushing refuling cycles for nuclear plants beyond reasonable limits so that their system works at about 70% capacity allowing careful attention to maintenance. In the US, pushing up the capacity factor for nuclear power has led to reliability issues owing to unscheduled outages as poorly maintained equipment fails.
As to intermitancy, it is turning out that geographically dispersed wind does a good job at providing power reliably so that, for the UK, is seems like an optimal choice.
Chris
Chris that's true, but the problem is load balancing the demand peaks at early morning and early evenning. The chances of wind following that demand profile are really slim. Storage will be needed even if only to acomadate daily demand variations.
So long as you are above the demand profile, there is no real problem, you just sell your excess. It is worth remembering that nuclear does a very poor job of tracking demand, coal a little better, gas even better and hydro the best of all. The UK has some pumped hydro storage now. I mention below that chemical storage in the form of methane might be a good fit with the UK's energy infrastructure.
Chris
To whom?
Chris, I'm a fan of wind owing to its reported high eroei, but feel there are some significant engineering and market regulatory steps need to be taken to make this truly viable. This would include pump storage and balancing against gas fired plant. I also kind of like the idea of building a parallel HVDC grid for renewables that sits along side our existing HVAC grid.
Euan
Do you think these engineering and market regulatory steps can be accomplished within the 2020 time frame as announced?
Boris
london
Euan,
Sorry to leave this unanswered. I know of at least one electrical connection between the UK and France through the Chunnel. By 2040, France may be interested in excess wind power since their renewable development is somewhat hindered by their present reliance on nuclear power. You'll likely be seeing excess at about that time that you won't want to put towards industry all the time. So, the timing may work out pretty well. There are other places where you might want to build an 8 or so GW line for export. The lines on the Risk board look like a rough draft of what might be useful.
Chris
Do you have statistics for wind farms operating at 40% or more? Real world operation, not theoretical.
I can confirm that the existing offshore windfarms in Europe operate in the vicinity of 40% or better (from real data I had access to during due diligence processes).
Let us remember that the length of the initial operating license for a nuclear power plant is not its expected life. Nearly all nuclear power plants that are approaching the end of their initial license are requesting 20 year extensions which will almost certainly be granted. After those 20 years, they will most likely get another 20 years.
That's interesting information, but if you check the comments on previous posts on Nuclear you'll see that some people claim exactly the contrary - some plants are closing due to aging and nothing else.
I think that faced with the prospect of electricity shortages those plants will either have to be refurbished or their operation will be continued despite aging.
Which makes building their replacement even higher priority that it already is.
Its interesting that when confronted with energy shortages, corporate and government attitudes to safety get deprioritised. You see the same thing happening in the oil industry, aging platforms chugging on for many years beyond initial design life. I suspect we shall start to see many more rig fires and disasters in the years ahead.
There are all kinds of claims about nuclear from the anti nuclear camp that are directly contradictory to those from the pro camp. The one we most frequently encounter here is the idea that we are running out of Uranium. This is not a split the difference situation. One side is clearly just wrong.
In the US at least, almost all of the early plants that are now coming up to the end of their initial operating licenses are filing for 20 extra years. There is no reason those plants cannot run 60-80 years. After that, they will just rebuild the reactors as they are doing right now at a major site in Canada. They might close down a few of the poorly sited early plants or ones that were really early designs that might not have worked out that well. Most sites will continue to operate as power plant indefinately.
Sterling,
I've been doing a bit of research into nuclear as I intend to make an investment in it shortly (Uranium mining company).
The main arguments from the 'anti' camp is that when the full lifecycle costs of nuclear are taken into account it is not so attractive and that Uranium is also non-renewable (the Chernoble argument seems not to be so effective as generally nuclear has a pretty good record compared to the 10,000+ deaths a year of coal for example).
The cleanup costs include everything from returning the mining 'waste' back to normal (some methods include huge quantities of rather nasty acids), disposal of UHexaflouride (Flourine itself a very potent Greenhouse gas negating some of the 'nuclear emits no CO2 argument) to the actual dismantling and storage of all the radioctive materials generated.
Uranium is abundant in nature but is only concentrated in certain ores. Therefore it is possible to extract seemingly limitless quantities 'if the price is right'. This is where the two camps can be correct at the same time. So its a bit like oil -there's a ton of the stuff left out there and if the price is right we can get at it...
There's also the issues that initial reactor core requirements are large and the US/USSR agreement to dismantle warheads has resulted in an oversupply (this agreement is due to phase out around 2012/13.) It therefore looks likely that during the next decade Uranium will be in short supply and I expect there to be something of a supply crunch around the middle of the decade. The Uranium price has already gone up almost 10 fold over the last 5 years or so. Some estimates put the number of new reactors to 2030 at between 500-1000 (this will probably depend on many factors like if we have to shut down old ones, if Peak Gas bites, when PO hits, Uranium price, etc, etc, etc.)
All in all I expect nuclear to play an important role in the next couple of decades but agree we may be literally storing up a tsunami of trouble ahead if the cleanup issues are not addressed...
Nick.
Actual measurements of full life cycle nuclear power energy inputs give an EROEI of 93. That is a lot better than any other fuel. Initial costs have been driven up by requiring safety and cleanup that are far beyond the other sources. Once coal has to pay anything near its fair share of safety and cleanup costs, nuclear will kill it. There is good reason to think coal will peak worldwide in about 15 years anyway.
Nuclear fuel costs are 4% of fully loaded costs and Uranium is about 25% of fuel costs. This means Uranium is about 1% of costs. The cost of Uranium could go up one hundred fold and only double total costs. New generation reactors, within the next 50 years, will recover as much as 30 times the energy from the fuel as the current ones. This will make it possible to economically use ores with many orders of magnitude lower concentration than we use today.
I do not agree with you on that one. Since reactors only generate about three cubic meters of spent fuel a year each, there is no reason that many decades of it cannot be easily stored at each plant. It is also too valuable to bury of otherwise dispose of. We should take the time to develop the technology to reprocess it so that it can be run through again to recover more of the available energy. In doing this, we will also be able to burn up all the elements with long lived radiation so that the true waste will be that much smaller and will be safe in a few hundred years. There is no real urgency to do anything about the spent fuel issue, except the political concerns raised by the anti nukes.
With that reasoning, we should just go on extracting the seemingly limitless quantities of oil as the price allows and forget about the uranium.
The point that seems to be missed here is that there will be a peak and decline in uranium extraction (or production, pick your term). If we went all-out, obviously peak uranium leads to peak nuclear some time down the road.
Almost all of the nuclear plants will receive license extensions, except probably the smallest and oldest ones. The 33GW of wind is a pie in the sky. Some wind will be build, but there is no way UK grid can take this much, especially with strains on NG supply (NG is the only option to balance wind in UK).
This is the only feasible path for UK electricity supply, neither the UK government nor anyone else can afford the lights to go out.
In my opinion the wind option could work if it was in parallel with a huge build-out of pumped storage capacity. We have plenty of steep enough mountains, lakes and other topographical features to do this, if we could overcome the NIMBY and environmental objections. It is NOT necessary for the UK to build pumped storage in teh same way it did at Dinowic and Ffestiniog (ie hollow out a mountain), it is possible to bury the conduit pipes near the surface and re-lanscape over them. Turbine housing a separate issue, but needs must.....
This would require govenment funding since wind plus pumped storage capital costs would far exceed the payback the market could offer in the time window used for market finance.
I would also look at building a major HV DC interconnector from Iceland to UK to baseload geothermal and/or hydro power. Same applies to this re financing.
None of this will happen since no UK political party has the balls to either cut spending or raise taxes to fund this sort of thing.
"The market will provide" is the prevailing view, and it will, just not the way they expect it to.
Iceland to UK is more than 1000km... not an option IMO. In addition Iceland has 1/200th of the UK population and similar energy production. What is it to offer?
Much more necessary is additional interconnection to the continent - this is only 50km and would allow imports of surplus nuclear electricity from France (AFAIK they are building a plant specifically for this purpose).
You are forgetting that pumped storage requires much more than just steep mountains (you are talking Scotland I assume) - it requires a river and suitable area for the two reservoirs which will be unused for other purposes. It should also be relatively near huge demand centers. I guess in theory it could be done in some not so favorable places, but in practice it will be hugely capital intensive, will require massive subsidies and will face stiff local opposition - not going to happen.
Why is 1000 km not an option? The Chinese are building a 2000 km UHVDC line!
http://www.abb.com/cawp/gad02181/c0d40da9112e6856c12573b0004490f7.aspx
1000km under sea? To export power from a country of 300,000 to a country of 60mln?!?
Of course it is a option. Hiring 1 bln.chinese to pedal their bicycles and generate our electricity is also an option. Just these options don't look good, do they?
Why is the population of Iceland an issue? It is irrelevant. The fact is that Iceland has vast geothermal and hydro resources which they cannot possibly use domestically.
As to 1000 km subsea power cables, it is really not that big a deal.
There is a 700 MW 580 km link between Norway and Holland about to come into service (http://www.statnett.no/default.aspx?ChannelID=1408)
There have been detailed plans for a 1200 MW 750 km cable from Norway to England, which failed to go ahead for financial rather than technical reasons (http://www.statnett.no/default.aspx?ChannelID=1169&DocumentID=10916)
Lastly the distance fom Iceland to Scotland is 800 km, not 1000 km (http://www.travelnet.is/ABC/about/geography.asp)
There appears to be an assumption prevalent in this thread that Wind is the UK's major non-fossil energy resource.
This is not only untrue, it is also dangerously misleading.
There are for a start a range of potentially massive resources offering power-on-demand
(without notional energy-costly storage options),
including both Geothermal and Coppice-&-Standards Forestry.
There are also major "scheduled-power" options including Tidal Barrage and Sea-bed Turbine.
In addition there is perhaps the largest near-pristine option of Offshore Wave Energy which,
with the provision of international power cables and the relatively slow decline of wind-driven waves,
could meet the majority of EU demand rather easily.
And nothing remotely serious is done about these options, despite our looming predicament.
As to why this is so, ask yourself whether, if even a couple of them were now under serious large-scale development, there would be any further discussion at all of the black farce of nuclear power ?
Walter Marshall, nuclear engineer and then head of CEGB, had the largest wind turbine yet built put on the Shetlands in the early '80s, and flew a planeload of compliant jouno.s up there for a liquid lunch at the opening.
And for decades data flowed to Whithall about the advantages of Wind power, and no other option got a look in.
And the Green movement ? That was not only neatly split between those for and against plastering the countryside with massive industrial artifacts, it was also prevented from gaining the rural landowners vote against nuclear power.
Notably the recent shift into rhetoric about Offshore Wind neatly continues the covert embargo on the serious non-fossil options.
Walter Marshall is discredited, dead & buried, but his nuclear-fossil-energy legacy still haunts the energy debate.
Until we succeed in viewing the options dispassionately, it seems likely that our position will only deteriorate.
Regards,
Backstop
I explained my population point in my answer to Chris downthread.
The whole electricity production of Iceland is 8.5 billion kwth. If they can spare to export 10% of it to UK, 850mln.kwth would cover the pathetic 0.25% of UK demand.
Now consider the costs of this equilibristics - the 580km.link to Norway costs 500mln.euro. Let's say your link costs the same (despite being twice longer). At 0.05euro/kwth times 850mln.kwth the value of the electricity transported would be euro 42.5 mln.year.
It will take 12 years for the link just to transfer as much electricity as it costed to build that power line only!! What about the cost of producing that electricity, the cost of maintaining that line (in the harsh North sea conditions), the cost of power losses etc.etc.
All these calculations would have been unnecessary if you just considered how small of a country Iceland is and how large is UK. Let's apply some common sense before starting to link any place on Earth.
See my reply below. The potential economies of scale are obvious.
Let's say the line would cost three times the Norned cost, or approximately GBP 1 billion. Let's also say it is "only" 1000 MW capacity, and runs at 95% annual capacity factor, leaving 18 days/year for maintenance.
That would equate to 8,322,000 MWh per year, creating revenues of approximately GBP 250 million per annum, using a ridiculously low price of only £30 per MWh. We are already down to a four year payback, and that discounts the fact that goeothermal energy would qualify for higher prices due to its renewable nature.
In practice, at present UK prices, each MWh would be paid at over GBP 80 over the average of the year - that's £700 million per annum - are the pieces of this particular puzzle beginning to fit yet?
Are you reading my posts?
"Let's say the line is 1000MW capacity" is nonsense.
1000MW x 365 x 24 = 8.7 billion kwth
The whole electricity production of Iceland is 8.5 bln. kwth. so you are suggesting Iceland will more than double its electricity production just to serve the UK market. Do you have the blueprints of all those extra power plants? Did you factor in their price and time frame? Did you factor in the infrastructure to interconnect them? Why not just build new plants in UK and reuse the infrastructure there?!?
What exactly is your point? Do you have one?
Last post on this
As I posted on another reply to you, Iceland has an estimated goethermal resource of 5,800 MW, of which they have developed about 1000 MW. That leaves 4,800 MW available - I am merely suggesting using just over 20% of the available remaining resource base.
That resource is available, it just hasn't been developed. Your assumption that they have developed all of what they have available is simply wrong - five minutes on Google proved that.
I have not factored in all the points you have asked (time frames, price, etc) because I have focused simply on rebutting your original claims that a 1000 MW subsea link would not be feasible and that Iceland did not have the available resource. I have proved conclusively that you are wrong on both counts.
So, in summary, yes, I am suggesting that Iceland could more than double (or triple, quadruple, etc) its electricity production just to serve the UK market. At current prices for renewable electricity in the UK, the revenue stream from 1000 MW of geothermal power exports would increase Icelandic GDP by 10%.
However, just because they could does not mean they will.....
Do you get the point now?
However, just because they could does not mean they will.....
Finally some bit of sanity here. It is so much easier to fantasize what we "could" do. We "could" build a giant solar array in space and power the Earth with it but we won't. We "could" build a bridge between London and New York and many other things.
And no, Iceland will not do what you suggest it will do. It is so much cheaper to generate and consume electricity locally or from much closer locations. It will be even cheaper for UK to export its energy intensive industries to Iceland than building new plants and so much more additional infrastructure around them.
It will be much cheaper to build wind farms in North Sea than geothermal in far away Iceland. A new nuke on the other side of the channel will beat your idea manifold and will provide much more electricity than what you suggest Iceland could ever provide. New coal power plants locally in UK will be even cheaper, despite carbon costs.
It is essential to distinguish what we 'could' from what is economical or in other words what we 'will'.
Why is population important? Just how many people do you think it takes to operate a few GW of geothermal or hydro power?
Norway manages to export lots of energy despite a small population. They manages around 2.5mbpd, at 6.1GJ per barrel that’s a steady rate of 177GW from a population of just 4.8 million. (To be fair we should divide that 177GW by three to give us 59GW of electrical equivalent energy).
It is important because it gives an idea of the energy production of the country.
I'm sorry that I was too lazy to look up the numbers before:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ic.html
Iceland electricity production: 8.5 bln.kwth
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html
UK electricity consumption: 348.7 bln.kwth
If we divert all electricity produced in Iceland to UK it will cover just 2.5% of UK demand. But obviously Icelanders may object the idea. As for the potential to ramp up production in Iceland, AFAIK they have already pretty much done it and are using excess electricity for energy intensive industries like aluminum smelting.
OK, I understand where your error comes from now.
The potential for geothermal development in Iceland is still enormous, they have only developed what they have demand for, for obvious reasons. This article (http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3975) estimates the total resource available at 5800 MW, of which less than 1000 MW has been developed.
Thus, in theory, Iceland has exportable availability of 42 billion KWh per year, or 12% of UK demand.
Aha. Now, you foresee still unexisting power plants and boosting Iceland electricity production more than 5 times.
You know Northern Canada has undeveloped hydro - why not connect to there?
Iceland has developed its most favorable sites for 50 years now. If you are counting on this small country to start developing all other sites and investing billions in transmission lines just to serve the UK market I think you are looking in entirely wrong direction. It's not going to happen.
Just compare your pie-in the sky project to a new 50km interconnection with France. I would suggest it is a hundred to one higher benefits/cost ratio.
Whether the increase is twice, 5 times or 10 times the existing capacity is irrelevant, as it the population of Iceland. Iceland's current electricity generation is based on the local needs of population and industry, without consideration of exports.
What is relevant is whether there is the primary energy resource there and whether technology allows electricity to be generated and transported to the UK at competitive cost. It seems there is the primary energy resource to generate a GW or two for export. China are showing us that long distance HVDC lines are feasible and I'm sure we can all agree that with the UK's nuclear decommission and gas depletion there will be an import market for those 1 or 2 GW Iceland could export.
Will they do it? They will if it'll make money - imported Icelandic electricity may well be cheaper than imported LNG in 2020.
Chris -
I'd well agree with both the technical feasibility of a GW-scale supply of Geothermal power from Iceland to the UK - In fact I seem to remember it being urged back in the '80s with the expected super-conductor transmission lines.
While the latter tech has not materialized, HVDC does appear to be a practical option, and one that is affordable even to a developing country like China.
Thus it seems very likely that Icelandic GeoT power could undercut imported-LNG power in the UK by 2020.
Yet there remains the political "consent" problem that has blocked all and any serious challenge to Nuclear Power's advancement in the UK over the last 35 years.
Geothermal, Tidal, Offshore Wave, Coppice Forestry and other major options have been starved even of research funds, let alone of funding for pilot projects on a scale to make any base-load non-fossil power look feasible.
A second strand of evidence of this obstruction (though neither reaches proof standards to my mind) lies in the UK’s utter failure, over decades, to update its fleet of power plants to avoid the (now inevitable) cliff of ageing plants facing forced closures.
Unless and until we address the obstruction I doubt whether even the most careful analysis of our energy options for the coming decades could properly reflect the difficulties and opportunities we face,
since, were we to achieve effective political leadership in the UK without further delay,
the options for base-load non-fossil power development could quite rapidly be invested to transform a probability of collapse into one of mere privation.
Attempts at forecasting actual outcomes thus seem rather courageous, to say the least.
Regards,
Backstop
Providing UK with 2% of its electricity is quite a revenue stream from a country that produces goods a tiny iceland polulation needs.
Making a healthy Icelandic economy with well maintained electricity production more important for UK has positive long term political implications for Iceland.
If the HVDC cable can be built for a reasonable cost it is a good idea even if new nuclear plants is an even better idea for UK electricity consumer. UK will anyway probably need both and more.
Colin Powell: "Throughout history, people have had difficulty in distinguishing reality from illusion. Reality is what happens, whereas illusion is what we would like to happen. Wishful thinking is a well-worn expression. Momentum is still another element: we tend to assume that things keep moving in the same direction.
The world now faces a discontinuity of historic proportions, as nature shows her hand by imposing a new energy reality. There are vested interests on all sides hoping somehow to evade the iron grip of oil depletion, or at least to put it off until after the next election or until they can develop some strategy for their personal or corporate survival. As the moment of truth approaches, so does the heat, the deceptions, the half-truth and the flat out lies."
Chris Shaw: "In the (alas, too few) years to come, we will see great argument over the proper allocation of dwindling oil reserves. It will be realised that other sources of energy cannot deliver sufficient surpluses to replace the potent portable energy we know as gasoline and diesel. It is not generally understood that poorer quality energy sources can be critically dependent on oil for their extraction, processing and distribution. In other words, oil is the precursor for other sources of energy; gas, coal, nuclear, solar, hydro, because these require oil fuel to create and maintain infrastructure. It also gives them the illusion of being profitable."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3837
Wouldn't that be Colin J. Campbell, not Powell?
Ni - I've always felt that a top priority should be to use Scottish large hydro schemes to pump store wind energy. This requires a sea change in market attitude since large hydro is currently used to sell electricity at peak times and rates.
How do you regulate this so that it is used in a fundamentally different way that is of strategic national interest?
I'm suprised you feel 33 GW it a stretch. About 15 GW of capacity were added worldwide in just 2006. The anticipated cost for offshore wind in the UK in 2020 is 2 to 3 pence per kWh, rather less that the 3 to 4 pence per kWh anticipated for new nuclear power. I think the estimate for nuclear was made before it was realized that reusing coastal reactor sites would not be an option so the price spread is likely larger. So, if the UK needs new generation, it's cheapest option is likely to be wind. Check pages 111 and 95 of Monbiot's book.
As you'll see below, wind can be used to manufacture methane so there not a big issue about balancing I think.
Chris
I gave a presentation summer 2005 where I discussed the issues of costal nuclear sites and sea level rise. This does not mean it has been "realized" though. If new nukes are to be built in the UK it's a dead certainty it will be on the existing coastal sites.
Not doing so is opening a nasty can of worms that the Government won't touch. If the Government says we can't build new nukes on the coast due to sea level rise - what else can't we build on the coast? What do we do about stuff already on the coast? Major cities including London? The existing nuke sites that don't complete decommissioning for 120 years? The new houses at the Thames Gateway?
It's politically impossible for the Government to prevent new nuclear build on the coast due to sea level rise.
Chris,
I'm sure you are aware of the work Greenpeace UK has done on this issue. So, the can of worms is not just open but the stage is set for needing to address more rapid decommisioning. This is so because the London Dumping Convention prohibits nuclear waste being disposed of at sea.
I suspect that insurance companies will have something to say about other construction projects, but in the case of nuclear power, international treaties come into play. The cost of accelerated decommisioning together with the need to find inland sites which may lack adequate cooling capacity without the use of cooling towers likely boosts the 2020 cost of nuclear power in the UK by a couple pence to 5 to 6 pence per kWh.
Chris
What a pile of crap.
So, the latest hit is that the sea level will rise hundreds of meters in 2 hours and will leave all those power plants underwater along with the nuclear waste inside. People will run away from the coming Great Flood and the ocean will be forever contaminated with the nuclear waste.
Well the British certainly deserve to freeze in the dark, especially since they are still listening to such nutcases as Greenpeace. The only missing thing in the equation is who is going to take the blame when things get rough? My bet - it will be the Russians again. Goodness.
You demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of nuclear power. The timescale for decomissioning of a plant is intentionally long. Humboldt 3, which was not all that hot since the engineers who designed it were a bit clueless so it had to be shut down early, is only now getting its reactor packed away. Thirty years! With sea level rise, it's on-site storage will have to be moved further inland. More expense. No wonder California has outlawed new nuclear plants.
Try to get a clue.
Chris
This is getting ridiculous.
Why the hell would you need to move the whole interim storage site? You just load the waste in containers and send them to another site. This practice has been around for 50 years and surprise, surprise - it is happening with hundreds of spent fuel assemblies - the ones many people like to call waste - now as speak.
Are you getting in a holiday mood or something?
"Humboldt 3, which was not all that hot since the engineers who designed it were a bit clueless so it had to be shut down early."
WRONG!!! And hostile to boot.
It was a demonstation plant of only 60 or so MWe, built to test out ideas for design and operations. It did its job and was shutdown because it was just not economic to staff and operate the plant. Plants under construction at the time of shutown were 1200 MWe and today reach 1600 MWe.
Most early plants of this size (60 MW) have been shutdown for the same reason. It would need a staff of five just to do the government forms and reports, at least five health physics techs, at least 12 licensed operators, a couple trainers, five or so managers, etc, etc, etc.
Besides, local natural gas production came on line as well. PURPA meant that the local lumber businesses went into the side business of burning their sawdust for electric production. Eureka is a very small electrical island with tenuous links to the larger grid.
I've crawled all around inside the Humboldt Bay 3 plant, BTW, and helped with some post-closure tasks there. Interesting design but it is intentionally sunk into the bay mud. The fuel will have to be removed in any case although the fuel pool is an independent structure that literally FLOATS in the mud. Slowly rising sea levels will just cause it to float higher!
You are correct that waiting to decommission and remove the structures is both economically advantaged and reduces the radiation exposures of those doing the work.
Now you invented this problem too.
You are worrying about nuclear power plants on the sea coast (say of 10-20bln.pounds total value) while each year properties of hundreds of billions pounds are being built on similar elevation and countless trillions have already been built.
Don't worry if in 100 years London is underwater the demand destruction would be good enough to render these nuclear plants obsolete.
BTW why is nobody considering sea level rise when planning for those gigantic offshore wind farms? After all every nuke around is considerably more above sea level than an offshore wind turbine. Who is going to be underwater first?
I need to revisit that post and redraw the charts in light of recent announcements. Two large Advanced Gas Reactors (AGR), Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B were both due to close in 2011 after 35 years operation but have just been awarded 5 year extensions, however according the British Energy site they have also been awarded the following caveat “Operating at its currently reduced level of 70% of full output...".
It seems every effort is being made to keep the old girls running. I have to wonder how feasible this is though as over the last decade their load factor has fallen from 80.1% in 1998 to 69.3% in 2006 due to poor reliability and with the numerous outages in 2007 I wouldn’t be surprised to see the load factor for the nuclear fleet down to ~60%. With this unreliability and by derating the extended power stations to 70% from the get-go we’re going to see significantly less output in the future years.