

US to build two new nuclear power stations - RiderOfGiraffes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8518670.stm

======
ryanwaggoner
_"On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our
planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left
and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," said President
Obama._

Well, that's a little insulting :)

------
sketerpot
They're adding two new AP1000 reactors to an existing site. Each reactor
produces 1.1 GW of electricity, reliably, for 60-80 years. While the building
cost is large (about the same as wind, on a per-average-megawatt basis) the
operating costs are low, and the power will become cheaper than coal over time
as the initial investment is paid off.

There's been some misunderstanding about the government's involvement in this,
so let me be explicit: this is not a loan, nor a subsidy. This is the
government insuring the loan in case the company building the reactors
defaults on the loans they got from private investors. Unless disaster
strikes, the government will actually make a profit on this without paying a
dime.

------
nazgulnarsil
we need 200.

~~~
orangecat
400 would allow us to get off coal completely. That would be a stimulus
package I'd support.

~~~
djcapelis
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?)

~~~
orangecat
_In 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_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States)),
the US has 104 reactors which produced 19.6% of the electricity we used in
2008.

~~~
jff
Ah, 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
Even 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.

------
aeontech
that is really excellent news.

------
ronaldj
"... to help build the first US nuclear power stations for 30 years."

Shouldn't that be the first US nuclear power stations in 30 years?

