Reply #9: Yeah it is sad. The "chunkiness" of nuclear energy only amplifies the problem.

[Statistical]

With this reactor it is 0MW or 1520MW you can't build a quarter or half reactor. Nuclear power is not cost effective running at less than full load. It makes sense when you think about it. 90%+ of the lifetime cost comes from construction & interest. These costs are fixed regardless of the chosen output level of the plant. If you run at 50%, 70%, 90%, or 96% capacity factor it costs you EXACTLY the same each month.

In a natural gas plant the construction & interest is a small cost and operation (fuel) is very high cost. Thus a natural gas plant expenses are directly related to chosen output. There is some static overhead but it is relatively small.

This is one reason why nuclear reactors have such high capacity factor. They always output maximum power except for refueling, unplanned outages, and ramp up/down before and after outage.

Some reactors even achieve 101% capacity factor in years that refueling doesn't occur. (Most reactors replace 1/3 of fuel every 18-24 months). That is running at 100% capacity 24/7/365 with no downtime planned or unplanned. Longest ever streak of 100% capacity factor is just shy of two years.

The extra 1% comes from fuel variation and fact that it is difficult to get reactors to exactly 100%. NRC allows reactors to run at up to 102% of rated power.