What is "load factor against design"?

Hello,
Whilst having a read of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_A_nuclear_power_station
the 'Closure' section mentions "During its 35 years of operation, Hinkley Point A generated more than 103 TWh of electricity, giving a lifetime load factor against design of 34%."
What does this mean? Is it the percentage of actual electricity generated against the theoretical amount it could have generated? Or is it something else?
Thanks in advance,
David Paste.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remarked:

It ought to be theoretical versus actual: Capacity Factor (what percentage of full load it runs at) times Availability Factor (what percentage of the time it's not in service for maintenance or refuelling).
The number 35% suggests it was seriously underperforming, compared to expectations.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/06/17 17:15, Roland Perry wrote:

Except if you bother do Do Sums, Roland, it comes out as 336/470 or 71% capacity factor against its derated capacity or 336/500= 67.2% capacity factor against its design capacity .
Oddly enough 1-67.2% is 33.8%, or 34%.
So what is probably the case is that it performed at 34% less than its full nameplate capacity ignoring that it was in fact designed to be taken offline for refeuelling and maintenance from tome to time and was in fact derated due to issues with iot.
saying 34% makes fools who cant do sums think it was shit, whereas the actual data says it was, for a magnox, pretty good for one of the early breed.
This is of course how false news starts....one might consider how to take the real data and present it in such a way as to give a completely false impression. And why a wikipedia author would want to do that...
--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/06/2017 20:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

32.8
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't feel the need to double-check data posted here. But thanks for the x2 heads-up.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/1/2017 11:03 AM, Roland Perry wrote:

In that particular case, the figure just looked wrong. Nuclear Engineering International used to publish a table every month giving the factors for every single operating plant (and, IIRC, national averages). Back in the 1970's and 80's the UK and USA generally ran in the 70 to 80% region, Indian plant was often down in the 30's, while the Canadian CANDU plant ran consistently better than 90%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/07/17 11:03, Roland Perry wrote:

Well if you dont double check it you are a numpty aren't you Roland?
Taking propaganda at face value without checking it.
You must be either Labour or Liberal democrat.
--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I refer you to the Grenfell cladding threads, where I appear to be the only person who has checked what actual tests are being done.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:01:53 -0700 (PDT), David Paste

I would interpret it as just that. HPA had a lot of problems, so it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't meet it's original design expectations. Load factors (aka Capacity factors) of nuclear power stations in the UK in general run in the range 70-80%. If it all works as it should, the only stoppages are for routine maintenance and refuelling etc. which happen every 12 - 18 months depending on the individual plant and design.
Mearns has data on Load Factors for different power sources in the UK here http://euanmearns.com/uk-electricity-generation-statistics-1920-2012/ and scroll down. Although his data only goes up to 2012, I was surprised to see the Load Factor for CCGT dropping away in recent years. I assume this is a consequence of having to vary the output of CCGT stations to accommodate the variability of wind and solar. Put another way, renewable energy power sources force the backup power sources to run inefficiently a lot of the time, but they have to be there to cope when TWDB&TSDS. Unintended consequences?

--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

PS: reading to the bottom of Mearns' blog, I see in his conclusions he says "There is absolutely no evidence from these numbers that the efficiency of large coal and CCGT plant is being impaired through cycling to balance the increasing load from wind and solar". He knows much more about it than I do, so I'll go with what he says.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/06/17 18:21, Chris Hogg wrote:

Actually, Hugh Sharman who writes there as well co authored a paper that says the EXACT opposite.
50% of all Irish windpower emission gains were wasted in terms of gas used to ramp the turbines up from warm starts.
They were only able to measure that by actually measuring gas usage on all the turbines, which required co-operation from eirgrid. # Unless you have figures for gas usage per MWh on calm days versus gas usage per MWh on days with wildly fluctuating high winds, you cannot do that calculation.
Euan has no access to that data, and neither do I. I had always hoped to get it for gridwatch, but it never appeared.
Hugh only gotr it by virtue of being in a position of trying to sell fast ramp gas turbines to Eirgrid, and them making the data available in order to see whether the extra cost was justified.
--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:01:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

It's here: http://euanmearns.com/co2-emissions-variations-in-ccgts-used-to-balance-wind-in-ireland/ or http://tinyurl.com/yd4zx3l4 Interesting, and a lot to digest, but "The main conclusion of this study is that wind balancing and infill power generation is far more costly than is generally believed at high wind penetration. The results throw light on the expected performance of incumbent, frame-type CCGTs in Great Britain (GB) where wind penetration, by TWh, is expected to be greater than 20% by 2020, up from 10% in 2015. GB’s fuel mix and weather conditions are sufficiently similar and its dependence upon CCGTs to balance wind is identical to that of Ireland"
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/06/17 17:40, Chris Hogg wrote:

And you would be wrong. That's two people so far who haven't done the Sums.
103Twh over 35 years is 336MW average. it was designed as a 500MW station.
--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2017 5:01 PM, David Paste wrote:

Someone can't do sums.
104 TWh over 35 years is an average power of 336 MW.
Taking the Wikipedia derated figure for the two reactors together of 470 MW gives an overall lifetime factor of 71%.
I think someone did the sums assuming 470 MW per reactor.
Incidentally, over its lifetime it produced exactly the same amount of power as it would have done had it run continuously at the derated output for the design life of 25 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2017 6:26 PM, newshound wrote:

Changing the subject slightly, here is quite an interesting "insider" view of the current UK nuclear strategy.
http://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionthe-uk-nuclear-programme-does-it-make-any-sense-5809043/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 30 June 2017 18:36:22 UTC+1, newshound wrote:

Something I've long said.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/06/17 18:36, newshound wrote:

I thought it was rather poor actually.
--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A very interesting read. Thanks for the link.
The author isn't optimistic about Hinkley C, and discusses the possibility of building several smaller reactors of a proven design (consolidation) instead.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/1/2017 8:42 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

It's a personal view. You do find all sorts of views within the industry, but the preference for AP1000 over EPR is not unusual.
At the end of the day, it's EDF who are stumping up most of the capital, followed by the Chinese. They have both elected to go down the EPR route, as has Finland (which is pretty clued up technically).
And the UK regulator, probably the toughest in the world, has signed off on the safety features.
Only time will tell whether it was a good call. With the lessons learned from the other four I am guessing the build should go fairly well.
I share a certain amount of the "deja vu" expressed over the prospect of having two or more different reactor types started in the next decade or so, having spent much of the past 45 years switching between the multiple designs of Magnox and AGR plant. Not to mention seeing the amount of money put into SGHW and Fast reactor designs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remarked:

That makes much more sense.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.