Skip to main content

From Germany to Maryland – with Love

r128634_422578 We can’t help but think that Die Welt, the German magazine, has an ulterior motive for looking at Maryland’s Calvert Cliffs plant. If they do – like knocking over Germany’s ban on new construction – they don’t reveal it. But we wonder.

Members of the Maryland Chamber’s board visited the existing 1,735-megawatt nuclear power plant, which first went online in 1975, and which is recognized internationally for its high level of performance. Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 set a world record this year for pressurized water reactors by operating non-stop for more than 692 days, and in 2008 had a record capacity factor, a measure of efficiency, of 101.37 percent.

Sterling!

In addition to helping Maryland meet its energy and climate change goals, the privately funded initiative to build a new nuclear unit would be one of the largest industrial development projects in Maryland history, resulting in 4,000 construction jobs and 400 permanent operational positions.

Golden!

The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that nuclear power plants pay 36 percent more than the average salaries for a local area, and that the average nuclear power plant generates $430 million in sales of goods and services in the local community and almost $40 million in total labor income.

Pure platinum!

Everything said here is true and also answers to our comment yesterday that not considering the entire life of a plant in calculating the cost of it is deceptive. None-the-less, please Die Welt, we’re blushing.

Well, we could have shown the Calvert Cliffs plant, but that’s too easy. This is the Gundremmingen plant near Ulm in Germany. If the Germans don’t get cracking, they’ll have to close this plant due to the ban – and, who knows, perhaps buy electricity from France to replace what’s lost.

Comments

Max Epstein said…
Don't you like, get in some kind of trouble for running above full licensed capacity for an entire year? (in reference to the 101.37% 2008 capacity factor). Not that I'm calling it a close call or anything.
D Kosloff said…
Capacity factor is a measurement of commercial performance, not a comparison of reactor power to licensed reactor power level. In theory, a plant could operate at an annual 100.1% capacity factor will never allowing the reactor power to exceed 99.8% power.
Unknown said…
Nuclear plants are licensed based on the reactor thermal power, not the electrical power, and they operate slightly below 100% core power.

The amount of electrical power a steam plant can produce is a function of the heat sink temperature. As a result, they can produce more power in winter than in summer. The electrical power rating used to calculate the capacity factor is based on summer conditions. As far as I know, this is also the case for coal, natural gas, etc.

As a result, a nuclear plant that operates at full power for an entire cycle will generally have a capacity factor slightly over 100%.

Popular posts from this blog

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

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

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