NEI's Nuclear Performance

NEI's Nuclear Performance - October 2007

Here's a summary of U.S. nuclear plant performances last month:

For October 2007, the average net capacity factor was 82.3 percent. This figure is 5.1 percentage points higher than the same one-month period in 2006. Monthly nuclear generation was 61.4 billion kilowatt-hours for October 2007, compared to 57.5 bkWh for the same one-month period in 2006.

For 2007, year-to-date nuclear generation was 670.5 billion kilowatt-hours, compared to 655.4 bkWh in 2006 (2.3 percent increase) and 660.0 bkWh in the record year of 2004.

As of November 28, 2007, six reactors were in refueling outages and 15 were completed for the Fall 2007 season. At the same time last year, eight reactors were in refueling outages and 23 reactors had completed outages for the Fall 2006 season.

Final 2006 data showed nuclear power in the U.S. accounted for 70.8 percent of the generation from emission-free sources of energy. Hydro accounted for 25.4 percent; wind, 2.3 percent; geothermal, 1.3 percent; and solar, less than 1 percent. Electricity generated from emission-free sources of energy in 2006 accounted for 27.3 percent of the total electricity produced in the U.S.

For the report click here. It is also located on NEI's Financial Center webpage.

Comments

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog