Nuclear power capacity factor

The advantages of nuclear power plants include the fact that they operate at a 90% capacity factor (loading). Also, 1 kg of natural uranium generates about as much electricity as 20,000 kg of coal. In contrast to fossil fuels, nuclear power does not contribute to global warming. In the past, the cost of... 

However, there does exist a relationship between emissions and electrolysis. Any pollution associated with electricity consumed by the electrolyzer needs to be taken into account. As stated previously, one fundamental appeal of electrolysis is that it creates a path for converting renewable power into fuel. But the low capacity factors of renewables (other than geothermal and hydro power) make an allrenewables case very difficult on an economic basis. Electricity from nuclear plants is also non-emitting on a greenhouse gas emissions basis, but the outlook for additional nuclear plants is uncertain at best. 

In 2003 the integral power generation in Russia made up 888.2-billion kilowatt-hour, the proportion of nuclear power being 16.7% that was above that of 2002 by 6.3%. The capacity factor of all operating Russian Nuclear Power Plants (NPP) equaled 76.3% that was also above that of 2002 (by 4.6%). In 2002 the capacity factor at Volgodonsk NPP reached an unprecedently high index of 83.3% [2]. 

The fuel processing operations to be used in conjunction with a nuclear power reactor and the amount of nuclear fuel that must be provided depend on the type of reactor and on the extent to which fissile and fertile constituents in spent fuel discharged from the reactor are to be recovered for reuse. Figures 1.10 and 1.11 outline representative fuel processing flow sheets for uranium-fueled thermal reactors generating 1000 MW of electricity, at a capacity factor of 80 percent. 

To relate these resource estimates to nuclear electric generation, it may be noted that a 1000-MWe pressurized-water reactor operating at 80 percent capacity factor without recycle, on uranium enriched to 3.3 w/o (weight percent) U in an enrichment plant stripping natural uranium to 0.3 w/o U, consumes around 200 MT of uranium per year. Thus the U.S. resource estimate of 1758 thousand MT available at less than 50/lb UgOg would keep a 300,000-MWe nuclear power industry in fuel for... 

Consider a nuclear plant (PWR) with net 1200 MW electric power output, operating at 90% capacity factor. It will produce 9.46E9 kWh/year ... 

Capital cost is the major contributor to the cost of solar power. With photovoltaic power systems presently costing about 4 per peak watt, the capital cost of 4000/kW would be equivalent to 8888/kW at 100% capacity, equating to 9 cents/kWh when amortized over 30 years (at 8% interest rate). Obviously, this is well above the nuclear capital cost of nominally 4200/kW with a 90% capacity factor (equivalent to 4667/kW at 100% capacity factor), and an amortized cost of 4.7 cents/kWh. 

Wind power is essentially free of fuel costs (except for royalties to the land owners), and has rather low operating costs, compared to nuclear power. Capital costs are in the range of half the capital costs of nuclear power. However, wind has a typical capacity factor of only about 30% (there are a few locations where one might expect as high as 40%). Installed capital costs for wind turbine systems have seen a significant increase during the last year, because of inflated copper and reinforced concrete prices. A nominal installation cost of 2000/kW is typical. This is equivalent to 6667/kW at a 100% capacity factor. 

The purchaser of any nuclear power plant will require high station availability/performance from the start of operation as the plant is capital intensive, but with low operating costs. Economic considerations therefore necessitate operation at a high capacity factor. 

The Ivory Coast has recently made major additions of hydro capacity over the past 15 years. The overall system load factor is exceptionally low (19%). In spite of the recent droughts it still has to be assumed that the installed capacity, with 70-80% hydro power, at the present does not reflect capacity demand and that projections for the 1990s should be lower than shown for 1992. There is also a major hydro potential of 2500 MW (12.4 TWh/a) in about 20 sites. This would more than cover additional requirements well beyond 2000. This country is thus very unlikely to consider nuclear power in any form at the present time. 

The estimated annual maintenance cost for a plant of the size considered is approximately. I, iO(),(KX), which includes the capital investment of maintenance equipment. This amounts to about 4 mills/kwh at 60% capacity factor or 3 mills/kwh at 80% capacity factor. I hc lo0,000-kw nuclear power plant described is estimated to cost 375.00/kw or 850,400,000, excluding 85,000,000 to 10,000,000 for research and development. 

As of 31 March 2002, the installed electric capacity increased to 105 GW(e). The power generation in the period April to December 2002 was 397.6 billion kW-h that is 3.7% higher than in the corresponding 2001 period. The plant load factor during April to December 2002 was 71.1% for thermal power, and 78.7% for nuclear, respectively. While thermal and nuclear power generation were higher by 6.3 and 0.6% respectively, hydro-power generation decreased by 9.6% for the same period. 

The Indian nuclear electric capacity of 2.77 GW(e) consists of 2 BWRs of 160 MW(e) each and 12 PHWRs of various capacities up to 220 MW(e) each. The performance of the nuclear power stations was very good with an average capacity factor of 85% in the 2001-2002 period. 

---