It also corresponds to 2-3 nuclear reactors.
I am also not shocked. But somewhat surprised by the choice of unit in the article.
I am also not shocked. But somewhat surprised by the choice of unit in the article.
One reactor, if you use a modern design! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)
(Or maybe 2 anyway, to deal with downtime)
My viewpoint (having involvement with many large (>$100M) construction projects, but not power plants): I don't believe the constructability issues with the EPR have anything to do with the size, specifically. I suspect the root issue is design and construction being too separated on the EPRs.
For example OL3 in Finland has to limit its max power because if it trips, the grid needs to shed enough load to stay up: (in finnish) https://www.fingrid.fi/kantaverkko/sahkonsiirto/olkiluoto-3-...
Kind of beside the point of meta using the equivalent of 1-4 nuclear plants of capacity.
these are newer and more efficient. so they are likely producing more than the average reactor. So its closer to 1.25 reactors worth of electricity.
but data centers are a HUGE driver of electricity consumption.
Or in the future - "how many SMRs is that?".
I should call it the law-of-something.
I feel reasonably comfortable with the estimated 2-3 reactors.
I could have said 1-4 but...
(there are lots of reactors around 4-500MW too)
2 to 3 is accurate for Canada, where the last nuclear plant to connect to the grid was 31 years ago. For the US, the range is 1.25 to 3.5 (four reactors in the last 30 years). For China, the range is 1.05 to 8 (56 reactors built in the last 30 years, but the 200 and 300 MW reactors are kind of special, so 1.05 to 4 is a reasonable range). For France, 1.15 to 2.0 (five reactors in the last 30 years).