Each power station usually has multiple units, each unit usually runs at about 2-2.5 GW for a large scale reactor. 400 stations with 2 units apiece would generate 1.75TW assuming about 10% were offlined for maintenance at any one time. Existing nuclear plants already generate a good chunk of power, non-coal sources exist as well.

Currently California's peak energy needs in the summer months tends to be only 50GW or so. That's roughly one sixth of the population of the US. Even if you assume the nation needs 500GW total, that's nowhere near 1.75TW.

In other words, I think your 400 estimate is much too high, where did you get your numbers?

My numbers show about 75 generating stations with 2 reactors each supplying the power needs for the entire US. This assumes no offlining and only 300GW needed but also calculates based on each reactor supplying 2GW when most of the ones we have in the US supply over that.

(Note: Calculated from a US-centric point of view because the parent post was talking about a theoretical stimulus package and so I'm trying to work the numbers on what my particular nation would need to move its entire energy infrastructure to new nuclear plants.)

(Note the second: It's possible my numbers aren't taking into account tranmission losses, would someone who knows more about power infrastructure than me fill me in on this? I got my 50GW peak summer usage number from the California independent system operator, does that number already factor in transmission losses?)