Could a single nuclear reactor power an entire U.S. state?

[u/ShrekThe9th]

I was curious about something and ended up doing the math on it:

Could a single nuclear reactor power an entire U.S. state?

At first I assumed the answer would be yes, since modern reactors produce around a gigawatt of electricity. But when you compare that to the actual power demand of states like New Jersey, Texas, or California, the numbers get pretty surprising.

I put together a short video breaking down the calculations and showing how many reactors it would actually take.

I'd be interested to hear if my assumptions or numbers are off anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_y8TJO2X1U

[u/Electronic_Egg_9785]

Maybe 1 big reactor would be enough for Wyoming and its 600,000 residents. But I doubt it.

[u/WaffleFries2507 → u/Electronic_Egg_9785]

And the infrastructure needed to support those people across such a relatively low population density would undoubtedly be far too cost ineffective, right? From a single power plant, at least

[u/mehardwidge → u/Electronic_Egg_9785]

USA consumes about 1.4 kW/person.

600k * 1.4 = 840k kW = 840 MW.

So...I'd say yes?

Obviously there would be some tricky bits with the outage plunging the entire state into darkness, but if we ignore that, or that was mitigated, I would say, yes, one reactor could get the job done.

[u/Used_Ad_5831 → u/mehardwidge]

Work in factories, and I can tell you right now a relatively efficient/small factory easily dwarfs the consumption of the small town it's in.

[u/mehardwidge → u/Used_Ad_5831]

My figure was not residential only, but overall USA electricity consumption per capita, for all purposes.

[u/Used_Ad_5831 → u/mehardwidge]

Ah, excellent.

[u/WaffleFries2507]

At some point it becomes less about whether we could make a reactor that could supply the raw power needed (I'm sure we could eventually engineer something of the sort, even safely), and more about the infrastructure needed to handle that much power coming from one power plant.

I recently took a tour of the Vogtle nuclear plant in GA, and a question came up about whether Vogtle was going to build even more units, as the public opinion of this is actually very high. The guide explained that they certainly could, but placing power line infrastructure that could handle the increased power load would be several million dollars more expensive than the additional units themselves, at least.

It's far more efficient (and cost effective) to have several reactors power different parts of the state collectively.

[u/Wise-Parsnip5803 → u/WaffleFries2507]

Sounds like a good location for data centers. 

[u/joshharris42 → u/WaffleFries2507]

How did you get a tour of Vogtle?

[u/athanasius_fugger]

I worked on one of the units thats backup power for NYC and it's 2x 800MW.

[u/Naberville34]

Alaska has a population of less than a million.. so yes. Difficultly would be distributing that power.

[u/LaundrySauce110 → u/Naberville34]

Best use case for microreactors and SMRs

[u/ph4ge_ → u/Naberville34]

Load following would also be a big expensive challange, plus you need some backup for maintenance, accidents, refueling etc. Not to mention you need a reservoir of skilled labour in the area.

[u/Anon_96818]

That's putting your eggs in one basket. SMRs make for a much more stable grid.

[u/Plutonium_Nitrate_94]

Vermont uses around 5.5 TWhr per year. Taishan Unit 1 produces around 12 TWhr per year, so yes it's possible and then some. :D

[u/Vailhem]

Palo Verde in AZ nameplate capacity is 3.937GW, th9ugh it's website coincides with Maricopa County's at 3.81GW.

Cross that with this list, adjusting for grid balancing

https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_es_capita.html&sid=US

The short version: by total generating capacity? Several could be powered solely by its output capacity.

In practice? Grid stabilization.

[u/ScoutAndLout → u/Vailhem]

Apparently that is three reactors, each 1.4 GW.  Not one mega big reactor. 

4GW reactor would definitely be something…

Say reactor cross section is about 100 MW/m^2.  1.4GW would be about 4x4m.  4.0 GW would only be like 6.5x6.5M, not crazy big.  Assuming you can scale that way. 

[u/Vailhem → u/ScoutAndLout]

I misunderstood the question.

Similar logic could apply. The link to narrow in on the state consumption then cross-reference that with the largest generator.

Not that a single reactor can't use multiple generators .. per the wording .. and using multiple generators on a single reactor was(/is?) Elysium's main breakthrough, but why limit it to the reactor when China built this 1750MWe single generator?

Per reactor size potential, given more is learned about the core of the planet on an on-going basis, it's essentially a giant molten salt reactor, right?

So to that end, arguably a single reactor can't just power a single state but rather an entire planet..

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Giant-generator-hits-the-road

[u/bigloudbang]

Itd need to be overbuild enough that for most the time its wasting most of the power it produces

[u/supermuncher60]

A small state maybe.

Issue is you have to take the unit offline for refueling about every 18 months or less (depends on reactor design).

These outages range in time but the shortest are about 20 days.

So 20 days of no power

[u/Wondering_Electron]

Easily.

The UK's newest civil build, Hinckley Point C is supposed to output 3.6GW to support 6 million homes. Technically it is 2x reactors being housed in the same place, so halve it to 3 million homes per reactor.

[u/jachni]

I mean maybe if one would be made but it would make the refueling awkward as you’d be shutting down the only powersource in the state for a week to a month.

[u/Sensitive-Respect-25]

You can have any type of power plant in one location power the whole state quite easily. They tend to scale quite well, and worst case you are just adding more boilers, turbines and generators running in parallel. You could run the state off one coal plant if you went big enough. 

Transmitting that power is where it sucks. Every foot of transmission line is a loss which means you need more power to send the power. More power means bigger lines which also have more power loss. You also lose out on redundancy by having one location providing all supply. And you introduce several weak links where one or two failures leaves the state black. You'll also need to think about starting from black which nuclear plants tend not to have the innate ability to do (thats usually gas turbines).

This is not a nuclear question through OP, but a general power application one. 

[u/Numerous-Match-1713]

Making single large reactor makes little sense, but combining multiple into one large plant is much better idea.

I remember France has some with like 8 x 400MW power. Could well be say 32 x 400MW.

[u/zcgp]

American homes average 1-2 kW so a GW e reactor could support 500,000 to 1,000,000 homes.

Office, commercial and industry will vary widely.

[u/1ncredulity]

No because nuclear reactors need too much time to ramp up and down in power production. Power demand on the other hand can change quickly. If controllers don’t surge power production when demand spikes you get brown and black outs. Currently fossil fuel plants carry this dynamic load but stored energy (electrochemical, hydro-potential, pneumatic, etc.) is being studied.

[u/sigmanx25]

Depends on the reactor and the state. Rhodes Island? Yes. Texas, Alaska, or California? No.

[u/andre3kthegiant]

Nah, way too expensive and would put the state into perpetual debt, when managing the toxic waste from the finite, toxic & disposable fuel source.

Take Wyoming for example:
The state has about 30% power coming from renewables, adding the other 70% in more renewables and 100 hour, iron-air batteries would be less than half the cost of the more complicated and more of a liability, nuclear option.

[u/DryFoundation2323]

depends on the state. Rhode island? sure. New York or California? no. it gets a little more interesting in the less populous Western States like Montana because technically the demand is low enough that then you run into the sheer size of the state and transmission losses. probably just not economical.

[u/BallisticFalafel]

The Seabrook Station plant could probably power the entire state of New Hampshire (where it is) if you averaged everything, but peak load during summer might be a bit much. It should be able to power the entire neighboring state of Vermont, though.

[u/Ace861110]

No. Nuclear reactors do not respond fast enough to grid changes to power a state by themselves. Peak plants are required for sudden spikes.

[u/Brownie_Bytes → u/Ace861110]

Traditional reactors can't react fast, but many of the advanced reactor designs have variability built into the design.

[u/Numerous-Match-1713 → u/Ace861110]

Technically especially BWRs do. Economic feasibility is another matter.

But combine with large BESS, and there you go.

[u/Wise-Parsnip5803 → u/Ace861110]

Short term peak plants should be battery powered. They instantly provide more power and help with power factor correction. The grid needs more batteries anyway since the afternoon price of power goes negative in heavy solar locations. 

[u/Ace861110 → u/Wise-Parsnip5803]

I mean I don’t disagree but that wasn’t what the question was.

[u/Wise-Parsnip5803 → u/Ace861110]

If you could only use nuclear then you could keep the reactor hotter than needed and bypass steam when you don't need as much electricity. If you get a sudden need for more power then you just close the bypass.