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

From: william mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 06/14/04 

Date: 13 Jun 2004 21:56:10 -0700

bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) wrote in message news:<a7076635.0406131245.7c6a1fa8@posting.google.com>...
> bri1600bv@hotmail.com (brianb) wrote in message news:<68a6629.0406121259.3e1fbe37@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Subsidies that promote the use of
> > inefficient energy sources like nuclear (and at present solar) -
> > exacerbate the problem and don't solve it.
>
> Some solar thermal designs are remarkably efficient, being able to
> yield 25% pa payback. Some solar apps are the opposite.
>
> > How exactly does his PV solar concentrator work anyway. It sounds
> > interesting.
>
>
> Regards, NT

Don't know what happened to my long winded explanations, whoever
started this thread seems to have interesting control over what
appears! I hesitate to repeat such a response - it seems whomever
started this can quote me out of context and the original doesn't show
up anywhere. If it does I'd like to be pointed to it! :)

As far as efficiencies of nuclear power plants are concerned, we're
talking about capital efficiency. I mentioned that before. Thermal
efficiency enters into it certainly, but that's not all.

And, you've got to look at the entire fuel cycle - not just this or
that boiler - which I agree can be made quite efficient.

Recall, there's no big reserve of nuclear material we're mining
already made up for us. We've got to make the fuel in breeder
reactors and whatnot. So, to be cheaper than fossil fuels the capital
needed for any nuclear power cycle - all of it - has to be cheaper
(and safer) than the capital needed for the fossil fuel power cycle
we're now using.

As far as my solar panel technology goes, my website says it all. We
use a new kind of solar cell technology that can take high intensity
light and efficiently convert it to power. Increasing the energy
density in this way allows us to increase the capital efficiency of
the equipment. In our case, thousands of times. This reduces the
cost of solar power. Low cost solar power translates to low cost
energy. If energy prices are low enough from this primary source, a
number of secondary energy systems can be supported. The same ones
that could be supported from nuclear power - if it were cheap enough.

For comparison, lets compare a nuclear and solar system.

A nuclear power plant costs around $5 per watt - when the entire fuel
cycle is included in the cost - creation and disposal as well as use.
The fuel itself is miniscule per kWh - so let's say that is zero -
though its not.

Existing solar power plant costs around $8 per watt - since silicon
costs around $1,500 per square meter and 200 watts are produced per
square meter. Of course, there is no charge for sunlight. So, that's
definitely zero.

So, the nuke is way ahead of conventional solar power. I say way
ahead, and not just ahead NOT because $5 is less than $8. I say way
ahead because of utilization. You can run your nuclear plant 24/7 -
you can only run your solar plant when the sun shines. Now, you can
add batteries and whatnot, but that only adds to the capital expense
and doesn't improve utilization of that capital.

Here's how utilization enters into the picture.

Energy is power times time. Kilowatt-hours is energy. Kilowatts - is
power.

So, a kilowatt of nuclear reactor costs $5,000. A nuclear power plant
can run 24/7 - say 8,760 hours per year. So, that kilowatt produces
8,760 kWh per year of energy - assuming no fuel costs. If the
discount rate - the time value of money - is 8%, and the lifecycle of
the nuclear plant is 20 years, we can calculate precisely what the
annual cost of the capital equipment is $510 - So, dividing 8,760 kWh
annual production by $510 annual cost obtains 17.17 kWh/$ - inverting
that obtains 5.8 cents per kWh. THis is more than the fuel costs of
power production, so converting this energy to fuel would mean
producing fuel at higher cost than today's fuel.

A kilowatt of conventional solar panels costs $8,000. A solar plant
can run -depending on location- say 2,000 hours per year. So, that a
kilowatt produces 2,000 kWh of energy per year - with no fuel costs.
Applying the same discount rate and life cycle - obtains an annual
cost of $810. Dividing this by 2,000 obtains a cost of $0.41 per kWh
- nearly 7x the cost of the nuclear power. This is way more expensive
than the nuke.

In both cases the cost of energy is far more expensive than the cost
of fossil fuels, so the idea of making fossil fuels from these energy
sources doesn't make economic sense.

There are about 1,695 kWh of heat energy available in a barrel of oil.
 A barrel of oil costs around $30. So, that's about 56 kWh per $0.018
per kWh.

Working backwards means that we must make energy, and all the means to
convert it to chemical fuel - at a cost lower than $0.018 per KWh,
which for a solar collector means a cost per watt of less than $0.35
... When the inefficiencies and capital costs of energy conversion
are added in, the solar panels must cost on the order of $0.10 per
watt!

At these prices - $0.10 per watt - we can make synthetic fuels cost
efficiently and sell them against fossil fuels - using nothing more
than carbon dioxide from the air as a carbon source - and sunlight as
an energy source.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
    ... expectations of 13% efficiency not 40% as you appear to assume with ... against conventional energy sources without government subsidy. ... By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash ... I answer the cost questions below. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Attn: Mr. Mook
    ... Mök Energy Innovations Increasing Solar Energy Efficiency ... dramatically reducing the cost of PV materials. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: "To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook"...
    ... If you want to see the ULTIMATE in fuel weight to energy ratio check ... And they miss the cost this has to our industrial economy ... drops to $500 per microgram with my ultra-low-cost solar panels. ... A barrel of crude oil contains 6,100 GJ and costs $100.00 - that's ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: "To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook"...
    ... If you want to see the ULTIMATE in fuel weight to energy ratio check ... And they miss the cost this has to our industrial economy ... drops to $500 per microgram with my ultra-low-cost solar panels. ... A barrel of crude oil contains 6,100 GJ and costs $100.00 - that's ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Did you see this?
    ... One of thie lines was something about how the fuel would burn in race ... that even regular grade gasoline does. ... what does it cost to make 85 gallons ... We'd like to add solar later, ...
    (rec.autos.sport.nascar)