3 ms·

It also corresponds to 2-3 nuclear reactors. I am also not shocked. But somewhat surprised by the choice of unit in the article.

bamboozled 2y ago
What is the output of the three reactors worth of electricity? Hot takes and shit posts ?
- manvillej 2y ago
  the newest 4 nuclear reactors in the USA produce 4500 megawatt hours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... these are newer and more efficient. so they are likely producing more than the average reactor. So its closer to 1.25 reactors worth of electricity. but data centers are a HUGE driver of electricity consumption.
  - fifilura 2y ago
    Whenever there is a post about nuclear it is always about the latest and greatest. Or in the future - "how many SMRs is that?". I should call it the law-of-something. I feel reasonably comfortable with the estimated 2-3 reactors. I could have said 1-4 but... (there are lots of reactors around 4-500MW too)
    - SECProto 2y ago
      If you said 1-4, I would not have replied - that is an appropriate bound for how many traditional nuclear plants it takes to provide 1.7GW 2 to 3 is accurate for Canada, where the last nuclear plant to connect to the grid was 31 years ago. For the US, the range is 1.25 to 3.5 (four reactors in the last 30 years). For China, the range is 1.05 to 8 (56 reactors built in the last 30 years, but the 200 and 300 MW reactors are kind of special, so 1.05 to 4 is a reasonable range). For France, 1.15 to 2.0 (five reactors in the last 30 years).
SECProto 2y ago
> It also corresponds to 2-3 nuclear reactors One reactor, if you use a modern design! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) (Or maybe 2 anyway, to deal with downtime)
- preisschild 2y ago
  One might argue that the EPR is actually a bit too big and thus has become a lot more difficult to build
  - SECProto 2y ago
    One might argue that, but unless the one arguing it has been involved with the construction of an EPR, I would not put a lot of stock in it. My viewpoint (having involvement with many large (>$100M) construction projects, but not power plants): I don't believe the constructability issues with the EPR have anything to do with the size, specifically. I suspect the root issue is design and construction being too separated on the EPRs.
    - sl-1 2y ago
      But unit size does have other considerations outside the project size. For example provisioning capacity for maintenance downtime. Too big units make it quite hard to get enough capacity for the grid to stay up while maintaining hard. For example OL3 in Finland has to limit its max power because if it trips, the grid needs to shed enough load to stay up: (in finnish) https://www.fingrid.fi/kantaverkko/sahkonsiirto/olkiluoto-3-kantaverkkoon/olkiluoto-3n-jarjestelmasuoja/ https://www.fingrid.fi/kantaverkko/sahkonsiirto/olkiluoto-3-...
      - SECProto 2y ago
        Yes, definitely a consideration - ol3 provides a significant fraction of Finland's power (~8% according to wiki). Having this large a fraction of any grid trip off would be disastrous. Grid managers have to consider similar things anywhere there is a single source providing a large fraction of the power. Kind of beside the point of meta using the equivalent of 1-4 nuclear plants of capacity.

bamboozled 2y ago

What is the output of the three reactors worth of electricity? Hot takes and shit posts ?

manvillej 2y ago
the newest 4 nuclear reactors in the USA produce 4500 megawatt hours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... these are newer and more efficient. so they are likely producing more than the average reactor. So its closer to 1.25 reactors worth of electricity. but data centers are a HUGE driver of electricity consumption.
- fifilura 2y ago
  Whenever there is a post about nuclear it is always about the latest and greatest. Or in the future - "how many SMRs is that?". I should call it the law-of-something. I feel reasonably comfortable with the estimated 2-3 reactors. I could have said 1-4 but... (there are lots of reactors around 4-500MW too)
  - SECProto 2y ago
    If you said 1-4, I would not have replied - that is an appropriate bound for how many traditional nuclear plants it takes to provide 1.7GW 2 to 3 is accurate for Canada, where the last nuclear plant to connect to the grid was 31 years ago. For the US, the range is 1.25 to 3.5 (four reactors in the last 30 years). For China, the range is 1.05 to 8 (56 reactors built in the last 30 years, but the 200 and 300 MW reactors are kind of special, so 1.05 to 4 is a reasonable range). For France, 1.15 to 2.0 (five reactors in the last 30 years).

SECProto 2y ago

> It also corresponds to 2-3 nuclear reactors One reactor, if you use a modern design! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) (Or maybe 2 anyway, to deal with downtime)

preisschild 2y ago
One might argue that the EPR is actually a bit too big and thus has become a lot more difficult to build
- SECProto 2y ago
  One might argue that, but unless the one arguing it has been involved with the construction of an EPR, I would not put a lot of stock in it. My viewpoint (having involvement with many large (>$100M) construction projects, but not power plants): I don't believe the constructability issues with the EPR have anything to do with the size, specifically. I suspect the root issue is design and construction being too separated on the EPRs.
  - sl-1 2y ago
    But unit size does have other considerations outside the project size. For example provisioning capacity for maintenance downtime. Too big units make it quite hard to get enough capacity for the grid to stay up while maintaining hard. For example OL3 in Finland has to limit its max power because if it trips, the grid needs to shed enough load to stay up: (in finnish) https://www.fingrid.fi/kantaverkko/sahkonsiirto/olkiluoto-3-kantaverkkoon/olkiluoto-3n-jarjestelmasuoja/ https://www.fingrid.fi/kantaverkko/sahkonsiirto/olkiluoto-3-...
    - SECProto 2y ago
      Yes, definitely a consideration - ol3 provides a significant fraction of Finland's power (~8% according to wiki). Having this large a fraction of any grid trip off would be disastrous. Grid managers have to consider similar things anywhere there is a single source providing a large fraction of the power. Kind of beside the point of meta using the equivalent of 1-4 nuclear plants of capacity.