Skip to main content

From Germany to Maryland – with Love

By

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.

Labels:

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.
June 19, 2009 at 8:34 PM
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.
June 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM
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%.
June 23, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more