Mook's quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?

From: brianb (bri1600bv_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/12/04 

Date: 12 Jun 2004 13:59:40 -0700

Back in the day, costs were not assigned to things that we would find
necessary today. But EVEN WITH THOSE COSTS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR -
NUCLEAR POWER WAS 2 TO 3 TIMES AS EXPENSIVE AS FOSSIL FUELS. That's
what killed the nuclear age more than anything else. No one could
figure out to make things cheap enough. Nuclear energy produced by a
nuclear pile with 3% or enrichment, is a low grade heat! Especially
when compared to heat engines that worked with combustion of fossil
fuels. This reduces temperature differences and overall *capital*
efficiencies. If you assumed improvements that increased capital
efficiencies of nuclear power plants, you could apply them to fossil
fuel heat engines, and they'd INCREASE THE DISPARITY - NOT DECREASE
IT. This sensitivity analysis killed Johnson's dream. That's because
a fundamental driver or ROI and cost of living in an industrial
economy is the cost of energy. Subsidies that promote the use of
inefficient energy sources like nuclear (and at present solar) -
exacerbate the problem and don't solve it.

------------------
Is the above quote true that nuclear energy is a "low grade heat"? I
vaguely remember from thermo that efficiency is related to temperature
differentials. Is that what he is talking about?

How exactly does his PV solar concentrator work anyway. It sounds
interesting.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast