Solar vs Nuclear Capacity

Comments debate the effective power output of solar farms compared to nuclear reactors, emphasizing capacity factors, nameplate vs. actual generation, and scale requirements.

πŸ“‰ Falling 0.4x Science
2,793
Comments
19
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#808
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2008
4
2009
9
2010
14
2011
55
2012
46
2013
42
2014
49
2015
101
2016
114
2017
114
2018
129
2019
199
2020
181
2021
301
2022
431
2023
355
2024
343
2025
279
2026
27

Keywords

e.g US MW LTE MW.That www.ieso PV iamkate.com NuScale treehugger.com nuclear solar plant power reactor energy power plant capacity reactors nuclear reactor

Sample Comments

samatman β€’ Feb 17, 2024 β€’ View on HN

That's a serious overestimate. Figuring a 90% capacity factor for the reactor and 20% for the solar installation, it's 1005MW delivered power for the former and 151MW delivered for the latter. That's 15% of one reactor, or put another way, it would take about six and a half of these solar installations to provide the same power as one reactor.

epistasis β€’ Aug 20, 2024 β€’ View on HN

You are using both with your energy generated numbers. That's where they come from.Your solar TWh comes from 25GW at ~15% capacity factor, and to get your nuclear numbers you're looking at 1.6GW for each of nuclear "plants" when each reactor is usually about 1GW or less. There are ~90 reactors in the US, at 54 plants. The article is assuming 1 reactor per plant for the Netherlands.

greedo β€’ Mar 13, 2012 β€’ View on HN

According to Wikipedia, the largest solar facility generates 354MW of electricity (assuming ideal conditions). In contrast, the recently approved AP1000s at the Plant Vogtle Georgia site each generate 1100 megawatts, rain or shine.So if the best solar facility, using 1600 acres of land can only provide 1/3 of one new reactor, your math just won't work.

greglindahl β€’ Jan 26, 2020 β€’ View on HN

180GW / 500 = 360 megawatts average, does that help set the scale?

gok β€’ Aug 10, 2020 β€’ View on HN

It's US$16B, and 10 gigawatts is nameplate. 25% capacity factors are typical for solar PV, whereas nuclear would be more like 90%. So it would compare more accurately to a ~2.8 GW nuclear power plant.

cyberax β€’ Mar 23, 2025 β€’ View on HN

Nope. The devil is in the details.You're looking at the nameplate capacity. However, for solar the actual capacity factor can be anywhere from 10-25% of that. So you're looking anywhere from ~25-70GW of the average capacity. Nuclear reactors can operate at 90-95% capacity factors.And the unsolved problem is storage. Right now, solar can partially replace natural gas and, to a lesser extent, coal.

ben_w β€’ Jun 30, 2019 β€’ View on HN

I think you’re off by a factor of ten. Sunlight is about 1 kW/m^2, so 1 km^2 (=1e6 m^2) would only be 1000 MW at 100% efficiency, 100-200 MW at 10-20%. That said, the plant looks bigger than 1 km^2 to me.

majmun β€’ May 26, 2012 β€’ View on HN

How many energy was consumed building this thing? and in what time will this power plant produce same amount of energy?

bramblerose β€’ Aug 19, 2024 β€’ View on HN

It's the power output that is relevant for the failure mode described in the article, not the yearly production. And in terms of power output, 20GW is an incredibly common number for peak solar production (see e.g. https://energieopwek.nl/ at the end of Jul this year) in summer. Borssele (the medium-sized power plant named in the article) has a 485MWe net output. So yes, we _are_ talking about >25 mid-siz

steeve β€’ Mar 4, 2020 β€’ View on HN

According to the article, one station is rated at ~100kW (that's maximum power output).A typical nuclear 3rd generation nuclear reactor outputs ~900MW-1GW.Assuming an impossible 100% charge (ratio between rated and actual generated power), that's still 10000x (!) less power than one nuclear reactor. Put differently, you'd need 10000 of these stations to generate the same amount of electricity as _one_ nuclear reactor.Then one needs to consider how long that plant can deli