World Survey

2003 load factors analysed by NSSS vendors

16 July 2004



The NEI tables of nuclear plant load factors to the end of December 2003 were published in the May 2004 issue. In this article, a further analysis is presented for the principal nuclear vendors. By Richard Knox


The tables of load factors show the totals, averages, maxima and minima, together with other operating and rating data for each of the main reactors types grouped into three rating size ranges (less than 600MWe, 600 <1000MWe and 1000MWe and above) for each of the principal nuclear reactor vendors. The world total number of units excludes units that have not started reporting in NEI’s quarterly analyses yet, and units less than 150MWe gross capacity. The data for 23 units were missing: all 13 units in Ukraine, two in Lithuania, the Armenian unit, and six in the USA. These units were omitted in the calculations of variable annual averages and totals. Thus the eight right-hand columns are based on 404 of the total of 427 units normally included in the tables. Maximum, average and minimum load factors are given for each group. Where the minimum figure was zero for any annual load factor in a group, the lowest load factor greater than zero is given with an asterisk to indicate this.

World production by the nuclear plants for which data was available fell to 2457.8TWh (6.1TWh per unit) in 2003. In 2002, this was 2588.2TWh from 414 reporting units, an average of 6.3TWh per unit. The total lifetime total of the 404 units as at the end of 2003 was over 44.3PWh. Average annual performance by the largest PWR vendor, Westinghouse, rose in the small and large rating groups (by 3% and 0.7% respectively), but fell in the medium sized units and, as a result, for the whole range (by 4.1% and 0.6%) compared with the previous year. However, the maxima for all three size groups were over 100%. Framatome, with almost as many units as its US competitor, experienced a drop in the load factor averages and maxima for all three size groups. The lifetime averages for the 17 KWU PWR units were all over 80%, with minimum cumulative achievements of over 79% for both the medium and small reactors, and 65% for the over 1000MWe group. These average lifetime figures exceeded many other vendors’ annual averages, and even some of the annual maximum figures! KWU’s five BWRs did not score quite so consistently, but still achieved very creditable results, as did the BWRs made by Hitachi and Toshiba.



Abbreviations and Notes
Abbreviations and Notes

Size ranges (gross ratings) are:
Small <600MWe
Medium <=1000MWe
Large >1000MWe
Only vendors with a total of four or more units with over one year's
operation are included.
Where the minimum annual load factor of any unit in one vendor's size range was zero, the next lowest above zero is shown, marked with an asterisk, but the figure in the "All" row (if applicable) remains as zero. The annual load factor figures plotted are averages for successive 12-month periods to the end of the quarter shown on the horizontal axis.




FilesPWR.jpg
BWR.jpg
PHWR.jpg
AGR and RBMK
Tables

Nuclear reactor performance by vendors: PHWRs
Nuclear reactor performance by vendors: RBMKs
Nuclear Reactor performance by vendors: AGRs
Nuclear Reactor performance by vendors: PWRs
Nuclear reactor performance by vendors: BWRs
Nuclear reactor performance by vendos: Magnox
Nuclear reactor performance by vendors: all units
Table of net start ups:

PHWR.jpg PHWR.jpg
AGR and RBMK AGR and RBMK


Privacy Policy
We have updated our privacy policy. In the latest update it explains what cookies are and how we use them on our site. To learn more about cookies and their benefits, please view our privacy policy. Please be aware that parts of this site will not function correctly if you disable cookies. By continuing to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.