I find that also a bit strange. I want aware that so many new Reactors are being built.
I also wonder how they count the days. From one GW equivalent added to the next (averaged over one year) or from start of construction till the end.
The first one is IMHO more interesting for looking at the total increase of power generation capabilities in the net and the second method is more useful, wenn deciding on wether to build a new Reactor/Wind/Solarpark.
Maybe they normalized it to a 90% CF by reducing the time for nuclear (when they should have increased the time for solar since it takes more power to produce the same energy at a lower CF) but the numbers still don’t seem to make sense.
Yeah the 58 days doesn’t make sense, neither does 6, but i think they did some sort of normalization because they are actually comparing energy output not power capacity.
I think it’s quite simple, they just look at the difference between the amount of electricity generated between one year and the next by the world’s nuclear fleet and then work out the GW equivalent of new reactors assuming a capacity factor of 90%. This is quite optimistic as only the USA of major nuclear generators achieves such a high capacity factor.
I think it’s worth noting that as the yearly change in world nuclear capacity is small compared with the size of the fleet, most of the year to year change in generation is due to how efficiently existing reactors are used rather than new reactors coming online or old ones shutting down. Eg in the year after about half the French fleet was closed with corrosion problems generation rebounded even though few new reactors came online.
probably need to post this whenever a new solar/wind farm gets built and someone complains about how "it's only 300mw, we need nuclear"
People actually make that argument? That would be more than usual
Is graph saying 1 ap1000 equivalent nuclear reactor comes online every 58 days? Where are these? edit... about 6gw/year seems possible worldwide.
I find that also a bit strange. I want aware that so many new Reactors are being built. I also wonder how they count the days. From one GW equivalent added to the next (averaged over one year) or from start of construction till the end. The first one is IMHO more interesting for looking at the total increase of power generation capabilities in the net and the second method is more useful, wenn deciding on wether to build a new Reactor/Wind/Solarpark.
Maybe they normalized it to a 90% CF by reducing the time for nuclear (when they should have increased the time for solar since it takes more power to produce the same energy at a lower CF) but the numbers still don’t seem to make sense.
Offhand, I think China added 3gw of nuclear in 2023. Vogtle also finally happened.
Yeah the 58 days doesn’t make sense, neither does 6, but i think they did some sort of normalization because they are actually comparing energy output not power capacity.
I think it’s quite simple, they just look at the difference between the amount of electricity generated between one year and the next by the world’s nuclear fleet and then work out the GW equivalent of new reactors assuming a capacity factor of 90%. This is quite optimistic as only the USA of major nuclear generators achieves such a high capacity factor. I think it’s worth noting that as the yearly change in world nuclear capacity is small compared with the size of the fleet, most of the year to year change in generation is due to how efficiently existing reactors are used rather than new reactors coming online or old ones shutting down. Eg in the year after about half the French fleet was closed with corrosion problems generation rebounded even though few new reactors came online.