Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nations with nuclear reactors

  1. May 29, 2005 #1

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What nations actually have commercial nuclear reactors producing energy for their country?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 30, 2005 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    ARGENTINA
    ARMENIA
    BELGIUM
    BULGARIA
    BRAZIL
    CANADA
    CHINA
    CZECH R.
    FINLAND
    FRANCE
    GERMANY
    HUNGARY
    INDIA
    IRAN
    ITALY
    JAPAN
    KAZAHSTAN
    R.of KOREA
    LITHUANIA
    MEXICO
    NETHERLANDS
    PAKISTAN
    ROMANIA
    RUSSIA
    SLOVAKIA
    SLOVENIA
    S.AFRICA
    SPAIN
    SWEDEN
    SWITZERLAND
    TAIWAN
    UKRAINE
    UK
    USA

    See - http://www.antenna.nl/nukeatlas/npps/nppsgo.html - click on link for each country to see list of plants. Some the information on the units is outdated - I noticed various US and UK plants which have long been decommissioned or others which are only in planning, but it is historically accurate for the most part. Well at least you have a list of countries.
     
  4. May 30, 2005 #3

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    thank you :D
     
  5. May 31, 2005 #4

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Astronuc,

    Yes - in fact ALL 10 of those listed on the first page of the list have been
    shutdown and / or disassembled. For example, Shippingport and Elk River
    have been completely dismantled, and their sites have been released for
    unrestricted use. [ These are good counterexamples to use when the
    anti-nukes tell you that one can't dismantle a nuclear power plant - or
    that it is prohibitively expensive to do so - or that the costs are unknown
    and that the sky's the limit. It's been done - and the costs are well within
    the amount in the escrow fund that nuclear power plant operators are
    required to pay into to cover the cost of dismantlement. ]

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  6. May 31, 2005 #5

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Greg, thanks for pointing that out. I just didn't take the time.

    The plants seem to be listed in order of commissioning.

    I noticed on subsequent pages of the US list

    Haddam Neck
    Millstone-1
    Fort St. Vrain
    BONUS

    Which have all been shutdown and decommissioned. Millstone-1 is one of the more recent closures. It shares a site with two other units.

    Fort St. Vrain was a commercial graphite-moderated, gas-cooled reactor. Lots of problems with that one though. One of my previous employers did a lot of support work for that plant.
     
  7. Jun 2, 2005 #6

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Because I'm a spatially oriented person, using Astronuc's list, I've rearranged the list geographically:

    North America:
    CANADA
    USA
    MEXICO

    South America:
    BRAZIL
    ARGENTINA

    Western Europe
    BELGIUM
    FINLAND
    FRANCE
    GERMANY
    ITALY
    NETHERLANDS
    SPAIN
    SWEDEN
    SWITZERLAND
    UK

    Eastern Europe and Former USSR:
    ARMENIA
    BULGARIA
    CZECH R.
    HUNGARY
    KAZAHSTAN
    LITHUANIA
    ROMANIA
    RUSSIA
    SLOVAKIA
    SLOVENIA
    UKRAINE

    Africa:
    S.AFRICA

    Asia:
    IRAN
    PAKISTAN
    INDIA
    CHINA
    TAIWAN
    R.of KOREA
    JAPAN

    Australia, Oceania, Antarctica
    None.
     
  8. Jun 2, 2005 #7

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You mean australia doesnt have any nuclear power plants? Interesting!
     
  9. Jun 2, 2005 #8

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  10. Jun 2, 2005 #9

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Crazy people! Anyone happen to have like a map of electricity prices in the US by region or county or something of the sort? I wonder what characterizes a low-priced electricity region/city and what characterizes the opposite.
     
  11. Jun 2, 2005 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't have a map, but HERE are the numbers.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2005
  12. Jun 2, 2005 #11

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    To summarize what is going on in those numbers, the highest by far is Hawaii, which pay 16.38 cents per Kwh. This is because Hawaii is the only place in the United States where virtually all electricity is generated with petroleum (almost every place else uses a mix of nuclear, hydro, coal and natural gas). Alaska's 10.6 cents per Kwh also likely reflects a large share of petroleum in the electricity generation mix.

    New England, New York and California all pay 11 cents per Kwh plus or minus a half cent. I suspect that this largely reflects a decision to avoid cheaper coal powered plants in order to meet environmental objectives. Both New England and California maintain more strict clean air standards than the rest of the United States. New Jersey's 9.28 cents per Kwh and Pennsylvania's 7.99 cents per Kwh probably has a similar source. In particular, I suspect that fairly heavy use of natural gas to generate electricity drives these prices.

    Most of the rest of the nation is in the 5.2-6.9 cents per Kwh range, which likely reflects generation of electricity predominantly with coal, or when not with coal, with alternatives that were chosen only because they were price competitive with coal. In Oregon and Washington State, at least, I suspect that hydroelectric power has been the main competition.

    The remaining outliers are Texas, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Florida. They are in the 7-8 cents per Kwh range. I suspect that rapid population growth and increased air conditioning use by existing residents has driven an increase in demand producing temporary infrastructure costs that are driving electricity costs in these areas.

    Kentucky's low 4.55 cents per Kwh may reflect local coal deposits or cheap federally subsidized TVA hydropower.

    Detailed data from here: http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/...2.html&link=http://www.eia.doe.gov/price.html

    As I've noted before in this forum, I think that the place with the single most to gain from a new nuclear power plant would be the island of Oahu in Hawaii. A single typical sized nuclear power plant could replace all of the existing power generation facilities on the island, greatly reduce the cost of electricity in Hawaii for most of its residents, and greatly reduce the risk of an oil spill which could devistate Hawaii's tourism driven economy. The state constitution, however, prohibits the use of nuclear power in the state.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2005
  13. Jun 2, 2005 #12

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    11 cents??? i wish!
     
  14. Jun 2, 2005 #13

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The prices are averaged over all sectors of consumption. Some details on state by state electricity sources follows:

    The percentage of electricity generated from nuclear power varies greatly from state to state within the U.S., on a percentage basis, from highest to lowest, the percentage of total net power generation from nuclear power by U.S. state is (with number of plants): Vermont(1) 85.3%, New Jersey(4) 74.5%, New Hampshire(1) 62.4%, Connecticut(2) 61.6%, South Carolina(7) 58.2%, Illinois(11) 54.4%, Pennsylvania(9) 44.0%, Virginia(4) 43.5%, New York(6) 38.2%, California(4) 37.2%, Arizona(3) 36.6%, North Carolina(5) 34.2%, Nebraska (2) 33.3%, Massachusetts(1) 31.2%, Minnesota(3) 30.2%, Arkansas(2) 29.3%, Georgia(4) 28.6%, Alabama(5) 27.1%, Maryland(2) 26.9%, Mississippi(1) 25.9%, Kansas(2) 21.8%, Wisconsin(3) 21.0%, Louisiana(2) 20.3%, Florida(5) 18.9%, Michigan(4) 16.6%, Texas(4) 12.7%, Missouri(1)11.7%, Ohio(2) 11.6%, Iowa(1) 9.8%, Washington(1) 5.4%.

    The following states do not generate any electricity from nuclear power (with percentage of power from coal shown behind each listing): Alaska 3.7%, Colorado 87.5%, Delaware 80.2%, District of Columbia 0%, Hawaii 0%, Idaho 0%, Indiana 98.2%, Kentucky 96.6%, Maine 0%, Montana 4.9%, Nevada 64.5%, New Mexico 88.5%, North Dakota 93.0%, Oklahoma 63.9%, Oregon 8.2%, Rhode Island 0%, South Dakota 37.9%, Utah 95.0%, West Virginia 99.3% and Wyoming 97.2%.

    Some states which use nuclear power use very little coal to generate electricity. California, Connecticut, and Vermont get less than 1% of their electricity from coal. New York gets 5.5% of its electricity from coal and Washington gets 3.4% of its electricity from coal.

    By and large this data supports my earlier post which suggested that coal powered generation was associated with cheap electricity. But, nuclear power seems to be an important factor in many of the higher cost states, and hydropower is apparently not a factor in Kentucky.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2005
  15. Jun 3, 2005 #14
    Purposely locating nuclear reactors in high-risk zones

    Oahu is in a high-frequency volcano, earthquake and tsunami zone.
    google.com/search?q=hawaii+tsunamis

    Normally, reactors are not located in such high-risk areas.
     
  16. Jun 3, 2005 #15

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    hitssquad,

    The coast of California may not have the volcanos, but it most certainly
    has many fault lines including the infamous San Andreas - so the risk of
    earthquake is certainly there. The coast could also be hit by a tsunami,
    should there be an off-shore earthquake.

    Yet, the California coast has 4 operating reactors [ Diablo Canyon 1 & 2,
    San Onofre 2 & 3 ], and 2 mothballed plants [ San Onofre 1, Humbolt Bay ]

    Although there is always much bleeting from the anti-nukes about
    placing reactors near earthquake zones - there's nothing "wrong" with
    the practice provided the plant is designed to withstand the maximum
    stress that an earthquake could exert.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  17. Jun 3, 2005 #16

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I thought one of diablo canyons reactors was shut down... hmm... maybe im thinking of San Onofre... dont mind me :D
     
  18. Jun 3, 2005 #17
    Ohwilleke:

    Have you got the stats for Tennessee? You have 50 'states' in your list, but it also included the District of Columbia, so it should be 51. I tried to find it from your link, but it wasn't intuitively obvious which table(s) you pulled your data from.
     
  19. Jun 3, 2005 #18
    Why San Onofre Unit 1 was shut down

    San Onofre Unit 1 was of an older design (first generation) and of very small capacity. It eventually became uneconomical to keep it running, as the maintenance and repair costs continuously crept higher (it was also determined to be economical to shut it down before the older employees, who had the most experience with that reactor, retired).

    Conversely, Diablo Canyon's two units are the most advanced reactors online today in the United States, and they seem to be cost-effective.
    http://www.zimfamilycockers.com/DiabloCanyon.html

    --
    The average cost of electricity produced in California is over 3.6 cents per killowatt/hour... but Diablo Canyon power costs less than 1.6 cents per kWh.
    --
     

    Attached Files:

  20. Jun 3, 2005 #19
    Your URL is a mile long and it simply points to this one:
    www.eia.doe.gov/price.html
     
  21. Jun 3, 2005 #20
    Nuclear production stats by state

    eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statestn.html

    from:
    eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/states.html

    from:
    eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html

    from:
    eia.doe.gov/fuelnuclear.html



    Code (Text):
    Competing Fuels

    Electricity Market in Tennessee
    (Percent Generated by Fuel)  
    Year Coal  Gas  Hydro  Nuclear  Petroleum  Other  
    2003  60    *    12      26        *         2  
    2002  62    1     8      29        *         *  
     
    *less than one percent
    Source: Form EIA-906, Power Plant Report
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nations with nuclear reactors
  1. Nuclear Reactor (Replies: 18)

  2. Nuclear reactor (Replies: 6)

  3. Nuclear reactor (Replies: 16)

  4. Nuclear Reactor (Replies: 1)

Loading...