was 97 percent. “You can’t do much better,” he said. “It just shows how important nuclear plants are for meeting our total electricity needs and they’ll become more attractive in a carbon constrained world.”
PERFORMANCE RANKINGS continued from 20
In fact, for 2006, there’s only one newcomer. Entergy’s Arkansas
Nuclear One is now No. 20, squeaking in with 1,842 MW. Pinnacle
West is still No. 1. “Pinnacle West’s been No. 1 for what seems like forever and it’s unlikely that it will be displaced,” said Hewson. PERFORMANCE RANKINGS continued on 24
Capacity increased a bit over 2005, partly Table 2: Top 20 Nuclear Plants Ranked by Capacity Factor (2006) because the nuclear industry has gotten better 2006 at spreading out the timing between various Capacity refuelings and scheduled outages, taking out Rank Operator State MW some of the bottlenecks. “We’ve also had some 1 Progress Energy S.C. 740 reratings,” Hewson said. “We’ve added 1102 Exelon Pa. 831 MW, but the number of plants hasn’t changed.” 3 Alliant Energy Iowa 588 4 Entergy Miss. 1,204
The cost of power produced by these5 TXU Texas 2,300 plants is low, so they’re dispatched first in their 6 Entergy N.Y. 1,041 respective systems and tend to run all the time. 7 Xcel Minn. 589 “They’re running like a top, with extremely high 8 Exelon Ill. 2,238 capacity factors,” said Hewson. “But the question 9 FirstEnergy Ohio 1,229 is, can we do any better? With an average capacity 10 Exelon Pa. 2,224 factor of close to 90 percent, there’s a limit to 11 Exelon Pa. 2,268 12 Pacific Gas & Electric Calif. 2,181 how long this trend can continue until we put on 13 Dominion Va. 1,790 new generation.” Luckily, there are new nuclear 14 NRG Texas 2,536 plants on the drawing board and incentives for 15 We Energies Wis. 1,017 expanding U.S. capacity of nuclear plants in the 16 PSEG N.J. 2,302 Energy Policy Act. 17 Entergy Vt. 610
This is a small, concentrated community, 18 Duke Energy N. C. 2,200 Hewson explained. Eleven companies own 75 19 Ameren Mo. 1,211 20 Exelon Ill. 1,734 percent and one company has close to 20 percent Of Top 20 Total 30,833 of all the nuclear generation: Exelon. “Entergy’s 66 Reporting Total 99,827 right behind Exelon,” Hewson said. “Between Source: Energy Ventures Analysis (DOE-EIA 906 data; EPA CEMS data) those two companies, Table 3: Top 20 Coal Generators Ranked by Generation (2006) you’re close to 30 percent of 2006 the total.” And who stands Capacity to gain from climate change Rank Owner MW policies? Nuclear. “If we’re 1 Southern Company 3,346 really going to do something 2 Southern Company 3,217 about climate change, this 3 Duke Energy 3,144 Southern Company 2,779 is where we’re going to5 AEP 2,600 see it.” 6 AEP 2,900
The capacity factor7 NRG 2,592 rankings for nuclear plants, 8 TVA 2,488 however, (see Table 2) do 9 FirstEnergy 2,360 change every year—it all 10 Ameren 2,300 depends on when a plant 11 DTE 3,000 12 TXU 2,269 takes its refueling outages. 13 Salt River Project 2,250 There are only five plants 14 AEP 2,600 from 2005 still in the top 15 Pinnacle West 2,040 20 for 2006. 16 FirstEnergy 2,220
In 2005, the Top 20 17 Duke Energy 2,240 cutoff for capacity factor 18 Progress Energy 2,476 was 93 percent. In 2006, 19 MidAmerican Energy 2,110 20 Progress Energy 2,299 the cutoff point increased Total to 95.08. As Hewson Of Top 20 Generation 51,230 pointed out, the average 453 Reporting 303,616 capacity factor for 2006 Source: Energy Ventures Analysis (DOE-EIA 906 data; EPA CEMS data)
Plant Name H B Robinson Three Mile Island Unit Duane Arnold Grand Gulf Comanche Peak Indian Point Monticello Lasalle Cty Perry Peach Bottom Limerick Diablo Canyon North Anna South Texas Point Beach Salem 1 Vermont Yankee McGuire Callaway Dresden
2006
Generation
MWh 6,462,698 7,227,028 5,095,442 10,418,586 19,896,009 8,974,490 5,072,551 19,107,811 10,475,373 18,932,677 19,197,184 18,390,995 15,093,158 21,368,269 8,560,416 19,348,146 5,106,523 18,391,827 10,116,660 14,442,046 261,677,889 787,218,636
2006
Capacity Factor
% 99.70%
99.28%
98.92%
98.78%
98.75%
98.41%
98.40%
97.46%
97.30%
97.18%
96.63%
96.26%
96.25%
96.19%
96.09%
95.95%
95.56%
95.43%
95.36% 95.08% 97.15% 90.15%
Plant Scherer Bowen Gibson Miller Rockport John E Amos W A Parish Cumberland Bruce Mansfield Labadie Monroe Martin Lake Navajo Gen J M Gavin Four Corners W H Sammis Belews Creek Roxboro Jim Bridger Crystal River
State Ga. Ga. Ind. Ala. Ind. W. Va. Texas Tenn. Pa. Mo. Mich. Texas Ariz. Ohio N.M. Ohio N.C. N.C. Wyo. Fla.
2006
Generation
MWH
23,150,235
22,631,218
22,465,906
21,658,406
20,356,894
20,083,907
18,873,845
18,743,383
18,628,146
18,577,546
17,986,907
17,821,177
17,538,831
16,671,669
15,969,176
15,593,714
15,491,411
15,082,569
15,053,852
15,014,874
Total
367,393,666
11,962,277,423
2006
Capacity Factor
%
79.0%
80.3%
81.6%
89.0%
89.4%
79.1%
83.1%
86.0%
90.1%
92.2%
68.4%
89.7%
89.0%
73.2%
89.4%
80.2%
78.9%
69.5%
81.4%
74.6%
Avg.
81.9%
73.8%
2006
Coal Burn
MMBtu
238,394,734
217,199,855
225,438,781
217,555,055
194,972,140
194,919,340
210,009,625
187,200,299
186,087,163
187,804,149
171,156,162
194,070,433
176,617,335
164,048,237
162,511,508
156,054,494
139,773,424
150,321,784
156,505,026
147,379,845
Total
3,678,019,389
21,172,942,376
2006
Heat Rate
Btu/kWh
10,298
9,597
10,035
10,045
9,578
9,705
11,127
9,988
9,990
10,109
9,516
10,890
10,070
9,840
10,177
10,008
9,023
9,967
10,396
9,816
Avg.
10,011
10,790
References:
Archives