5 ms·
Each power station usually has multiple units, each unit usually runs at about 2-2.5 GW for a large scale reactor. 400 stations with 2 units apiece would gener
by djcapelis 17y ago
Each power station usually has multiple units, each unit usually runs at about 2-2.5 GW for a large scale reactor. 400 stations with 2 units apiece would generate 1.75TW assuming about 10% were offlined for maintenance at any one time. Existing nuclear plants already generate a good chunk of power, non-coal sources exist as well.
Currently California's peak energy needs in the summer months tends to be only 50GW or so. That's roughly one sixth of the population of the US. Even if you assume the nation needs 500GW total, that's nowhere near 1.75TW.
In other words, I think your 400 estimate is much too high, where did you get your numbers?
My numbers show about 75 generating stations with 2 reactors each supplying the power needs for the entire US. This assumes no offlining and only 300GW needed but also calculates based on each reactor supplying 2GW when most of the ones we have in the US supply over that.
(Note: Calculated from a US-centric point of view because the parent post was talking about a theoretical stimulus package and so I'm trying to work the numbers on what my particular nation would need to move its entire energy infrastructure to new nuclear plants.)
(Note the second: It's possible my numbers aren't taking into account tranmission losses, would someone who knows more about power infrastructure than me fill me in on this? I got my 50GW peak summer usage number from the California independent system operator, does that number already factor in transmission losses?)
- mattheww 17y agoWe used 3.8 TW-hrs in 2005 (which translates to average 434 GW usage, so 500GW is probably a bit low for peak). DOE (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/overview.pdf http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/overview.pdf) projects usage of 5.3 TW-hours in 2035, which translates to about 605 GW average. We probably need 1+ TW capacity in the US to handle peak usage.
- orangecat 17y agoIn other words, I think your 400 estimate is much too high, where did you get your numbers? From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Sta...), the US has 104 reactors which produced 19.6% of the electricity we used in 2008.
- jff 17y agoAh, but all of those 104 reactors are at least 30 years old--if modern reactors aren't significantly more efficient, I'll be sorely disappointed.
- sketerpot 17y agoEven the old technology has been getting more efficient. Those reactors have been producing ever-increasing amounts of electricity for those past 30 years as they upgraded the systems and figured out how to reduce downtime.
- sketerpot 17y agoA few minor corrections: When the BBC talks about "two new power stations" what they mean is "two new AP1000 reactors being added to an existing site". So this is actually a single power plant. But I find it more productive to talk about reactors anyway. Second, the largest reactors today are about 1.6 GW. The reactors being built here are 1.1 GW AP1000s. That affects your numbers.