Re: Mook's quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?
From: william mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 06/15/04
- Next message: Joe Strout: "Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)"
- Previous message: william mook: "Re: Mook's quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?"
- In reply to: daestrom: "Re: Mook's quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?"
- Next in thread: daestrom: "Re: Mook's quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?"
- Reply: daestrom: "Re: Mook's quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Jun 2004 19:11:46 -0700
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:<6Tpzc.337449$M3.291376@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> "william mook" <william.mook@mokindustries.com> wrote in message
> news:407c5321.0406132056.3a4a9dcb@posting.google.com...
> > 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>...
> > >
> <snip>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Why do you assume that the nuclear fuel must be made in a breeder?
Because its the lowest cost fuel cycle.
> There
> are estimates of the amount of fissile material available for many years.
Okay. But add the cost of whatever equipment is needed to obtain and
dispose of the nuclear material after running it through your reactor
to the cost of the reactor.
> > 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.
>
> Although the last few US nuclear plants that came on line are in that price
> range, the advanced designs, with their pre-licensing approvals are
> estimated to run in the $2 to $3 per watt range.
This is the cost of the power plant alone. Add the costs of making or
obtaining the fuel and then disposing of the fuel - and you'll find
the costs are higher than you quote. Even so, these prices are too
high to allow us the use of nuclear fuel to power a synthetic fuel
process that's cost competitive with fossil fuel. Which was the point
of my commentary. With higher energy costs we have lower living
standards. Which should be avoided if possible.
> Unfortunately, economic
> studies by private owners/operators suggest it isn't viable to build a new
> plant until the price comes down to the $1.50/watt range or until the price
> of fossil fuels rises substantially (coal, and NG, not oil prices).
Yes. If scarcity drives the cost of fossil fuels economic growth will
be a thing of the past and our future will not be as bright as our
past. In short there will be a severe economic reversal and that will
exacerbate the political difficulties we currently find ourselves in.
In an era of loose nukes, bankrupt governments and pissed off zealots
of every stripe - we can safely say humanity's technical history will
be entering its closing stages - and we will have failed as a
technical species. Which would be too damn bad.
> >
> > 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.
>
> The licensed lifetime and design of US nucs is actually 40 years. And
> several plants have applied for (and been granted) life extensions to allow
> operation for a total of 60 years. Despite this, in the late '80's and
> early '90's, there were several plants that were shutdown prematurely
> (before their license/design lifetime) for economical reasons. FWIW, so
> far, no US nuclear plant has actually operated to its full design life
> (oldest plant still operating will reach the 40 year mark in 2009).
This makes things a little better - the discount rate is the kicker.
That income from 20 to 40 years is a small partof the total.
>
> But these are construction/capital costs only. For a PV system, I'm sure
> the O&M costs are comparatively low, but for a nuc they are quite another
> matter. The exact $/kwh varies with the size of the plant and it's capacity
> factor of course, but a well run plant of typical size can have O&M costs of
> $0.017/kwh.
That number is low. I'd like to see the breakdown on that to find out
where they've fudged it.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> The heat energy in a barrel of oil cannot all be converted to other useful
> forms of energy.
???? Burn oil in a turbine engine and convert 40% of it to
electrical energy. Your comment doesn't make sense.
> Of course, neither can all the electrical energy from a
> nuclear of PV system, but the conversion efficiency for electrical energy is
> much higher than for heat energy.
I agree there are losses whenever you convert energy. This doesn't
mean it cannot be done.
> Perhaps an adjustment should be made here
> to account for the differences.
Here process enters into it. Electricity can be converted to hydrogen
via water electrolysis at 50% TO 90% efficiency depending. Hydrogen
can be combined with carbon to create hydrocarbons in a variety of
ways at 50% to 90% efficiency. Thus, sunlight can be converted to oil
at 25% to 81% efficiency. That oil can be used to create mechanical
energy and electricity at efficiencies ranging from 25% to 40% - thus
sunlight can be converted to useful forms with little capital
infrastructure change with efficiencies from 12.5% to 32%. This means
we need 3 to 8 times as many solar collectors as oil burners. To be
competitive at these efficiencies means we must make PV for $0.10 per
watt or less. I have achieved far less costs. Thus we can make
synthetic oil straight away from atmospheric CO2 and sell it
immediately.
> > 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!
>
> This is true only if you insist on taking the alternative forms of energy
> such as the electricity from a nuc or PV system and convert it into a form
> of hydrocarbon fuel.
That's right.
> It's not clear why one would insist on doing this
> except for an existing infrastructure to distribute the hydrocarbon fuel.
Precisely. Consider the cost of all the oil burners- they amount to
$30 trillion. At a cost of say $0.03 per watt peak - we need
something like $1 trillion of panels to make oil. But we save the
world the cost of trashing $30 trillion worth of equipment.
Meanwhile, we have all the electricity and all the hydrogen as an
intermediate product - to use as we can- lowering the cost of energy
in the future - as the older stuff ends its natural useful life.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Hmmm, yes and if PV costs could be reduced further, say to $0.05 per watt,
> it could crowd fossil fuels right off the market.
We're presently less than $0.03
> An interesting
> hypothetical. Or do you believe such price levels are attainable?
I have already attained them.
> daestrom
Cheers
- Next message: Joe Strout: "Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)"
- Previous message: william mook: "Re: Mook's quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?"
- In reply to: daestrom: "Re: Mook's quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?"
- Next in thread: daestrom: "Re: Mook's quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?"
- Reply: daestrom: "Re: Mook's quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
