Load factors to end June 200030 October 2000
Table 1 lists units over 150MW in order of their load factors for the 365 days ending 30 June, 2000. Units that have not been in generating electricity for one year are listed in Table 2. Nuclear units in Russia and the Ukraine are listed in tables 3 and 4.
Availability for the same period is included in Table 1 where data were available, which, when availability considerably exceeds load factors, helps to indicate where nuclear units are producing less than full rated capacity due to load following requirements, particularly evident in the case of reactors in France.
A rare event, the name of a unit has been changed – from WNP 2 to the more romantic Columbia. Take care when comparing with previous tables in alphabetical order.
The 374 units have now achieved a total of just over 7047 reactor years of operation, generating 34604.2TWh with an average load factor for the year to end June 2000 of 77%, and a lifetime average of just over 70%. The total rating (including the four units whose data is unavailable) is just over 334GWe.
Units for which data was not available were Kozluduoy 5 and 6 in Bulgaria, Callaway and Nine Mile Point 1 in the US, and some erratic reporting by units in India, for which an estimate over one month has allowed them to be included for this quarter.
Kori 4 heads the main table with an annual load factor of over 104% for the second successive quarter, and there are many other units that have achieved an annual output in excess of their rating, showing that nuclear power units can achieve some of the best load factors of any form of commercial scale electricity or heat generation. We have allowed upratings when these have been licensed. The figures published in the main tables are intended to reflect the performance of the unit to indicate value for money. So it is assumed that if the user has bought and paid for a unit of a specified capacity, subsequent derating should not be applied, since the owner is suffering a permanent loss. It would be absurd, for example, to derate a unit to half its design rating and then show it to be achieving 100% of its new annual capacity, and compare this to a unit achieving 100% of its original rating.
Similarly, an investment in plant upgrading should be reflected in rating calculations. If would be equally absurd to invest a huge sum in increasing the output of a unit by 50%, then, if the uprating proved useless, merely credit the performance at the original rating once more.
The licensed ratings of Kori 3 and 4 were increased from 950 to 965MWe (gross) early in 1995 and have now been reduced to their original ratings. At the original rating, the Kori 4 unit this year achieved over 106% of its nominal annual output. Even according to the uprated figure used in these pages since 1995, the unit achieved an annual load factor of over 104% to come top of this quarter's table.
TablesTable 1. Annual and lifetime average load factors to end June 2000, for reactors of 150 MWe and above Table 1.cont. Annual and lifetime average load factors to end June 2000, for reactors of 150 MWe and above Table 1. cont.2 Annual and lifetime average load factors to end June 2000, for reactors of 150 MWe and above Table 1. cont3 Annual and lifetime average load factors to end June 2000, for reactors of 150 MWe and above Table 2. Units that had not operated for 1 year as at end June 2000 Table 3. Annual and lifetime load factors (to end June 2000) for Russian reactors over 150 MWe Table 4. Annual and lifetime load factors (to end June 2000) for Ukrainian reactors over 150 MWe Top ten by lifetime performance to end June 2000 Top ten electricity generators as of end June 2000 Country averages as at end June 2000