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

From: william mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: 4 Jul 2004 20:43:37 -0700

"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:<BY1Fc.204007$j24.144680@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> "william mook" <william.mook@mokindustries.com> wrote in message
> news:407c5321.0406290737.432f6bbb@posting.google.com...
> > 950 lines [snipped!]
> >
> > Two points remain;
> >
> > (1) how to calculate the capital cost contribution to a unit of
> > energy;
> > (2) what references can I supply to support my $5 per watt
> > contention;
> >
> > To the first point,
> >
> > Energy is Power x Time. Watts measure power. Watt-hours meaasure
> > energy.
> >
> > and
> >
> > Money has a time value. So, money tied up to support something, even
> > if its retrieved later - like a deposit on rental equipment - has a
> > cost associated with it for the time it is tied up.
> >
> > So, we calculate total contribution of the capital cost to a kWh as
> > follows;
> >
> > Annual_Cost = PMT(rate,nper,value)
> > rate = interest rate
> > nper = useful life in years
> > value= capital cost of equipment
> >
> > Annual_Output
> >
> > Cost/kWh = Annual_Cost / Annual_Output
> >
> > Now, if money has a value of 8% per annum, and
> >
> > if a solar panel costs $8 per watt and lasts 20 years and is placed in
> > a location that produces 2 kWh per year we can compute the capital
> > cost contribution to the energy as; $0.407409 / kWh
> >
> > and if a nuclear plant costs $5 per watt and lasts 30 years and is
> > operated at 70% capacity throughout the year, each watt produces 6.132
> > kWh per year,so we can compute the capital cost contribution to the
> > energy as; $0.07238 / kWh
>
> Yes, I agree that cost per kWh is an excellent way to calculate the capital
> cost of producing energy from a particular technology. Gee, isn't that what
> I've been saying all along? But again you use 70%, that is the *bottom*
> quartile of operating plants.
>
> >
> > We should be able to both agree that the calculations above are
> > correct, given the assumptions.
> >
> > So,the issue are the assumptions.
>
> Right.

Excellent... we agree as to what we're talking about, now on to the
assumptions.

> But why do you assume such a low capacity for a nuclear plant? Your
> own references earlier show it to be higher than that? And why only 30
> years?

I thought them reasonable given the political environment in which
they operate. Those references if examined closely can seen to be
biased. They discard those plants that in the view of the authors are
unreasonably delayed and turned off for insufficiently good reasons.
So, they are biased toward rather rosy and optimistic figures - not
real world figures with real people and real politicians around.

>
> http://www.nei.org/documents/Capacity_Factors_by_Fuel_Type.pdf (+90%
> capacity factor)
> http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=3&catid=13 (+91.9% capacity factor)

Yes. These are biased along the lines I've already mentioned. While
these may be good targets they are not good predictors. Which do you
want? Targets to motivate employees, or reasonable predictions of
real costs in the real world? Pick one. You've picked the one that's
extraordinarily high. 90% that means only 36 days out of a year are
down times for the plant. Heck a Coca Cola bottling lant has more
days of down time and its not one percent as complex as a nuclear
plant.
 
> >
> > Clearly if nuclear power can be generated for $2.50 per watt, the
> > capital cost contribution will be half the figure just computed
> > ($0.03619 / kWh)
> >
>
> Another way to look at it too is that $2.50 per watt, at 8% per annum over
> 40 years is $0.19/watt/year. Perhaps this is what your first '$0.20 per
> watt' came from? Just the capital cost *per year*, not total?

I'm not tracking your comment totally, but it sounds reasonable.
 
> > To these figures we must add any recurring costs. Things like fuel
> > (if applicable) or taxes, or routine operating or maintenance costs.
> >
> > Now, to the second point...
> >
> > http://www.mecgrassroots.org/NEWSL/ISS38/38.07CostNuclear.html
> >
> > The Shoreham nuclear plant cost $7 billion. It didn't produce any
> > power. But let's imagine that it did. Let's imagine that it operated
> > at 80% capacity for 20 years without any major maintenance or
> > technical problem. Under these very rosy assumptions what would the
> > cost per watt be?
> >
> > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v2/
> > http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1992/j92/j92.wilson.html
> >
> > Hmm... 650 MW. In 1967 GE thought they could build it for $65
> > million. But for $7 billion - that's well over $10 per watt! And
> > with the 80% capacity - its $13.46 per watt!!
>
> Uh, your own reference (nrc.gov) shows that Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
> is/was rated for 819 MW.

Got a reference for this? nrc.gov is a rather large collection of
sites. Specific reference I can read?

> Or are you mixing up the rating for Oyster Creek
> which started operating in 1969 (rated at 650MWe)?

Dunno, I just picked one out of the list of plants that came up - I
thought it was 650MW e - if you see that it was 819 somewhere and
that's what was actually built I'd appreciate a specific reference
that I can click and read myself. There might be differences between
what was planned early on and what was actually built too.

> Shoreham's 819MWe would
> be $8.55 per watt.

Still over $5.00 per watt isn't it.

> Even with this *extreme* example (you probably switched
> to Shoreham just for this reason),

Nonsense. I'm saying that $5.00 is a reasonably optimistic figure
given our experience with nuclear power - $8.55 is bigger than $5.00
in case you hadn't noticed.

> if operated well at 90% capacity for 40
> years the capital costs are $0.09/kWh.

Okay, I didn't check your figures, but okay.

> Too high to be economical, but not
> the hyperbole you seem to be striving for.

Not striving for hyperbole just trying to make a simple point, namely,
that we cannot rely on nuclear power to displace oil in our lives. It
cannot be used to power industrial processes that will generate
synthetic fuels at anything like the cost of fossil fuels today.
Which is my point.

 
> And how many of the cost overruns were caused by an ignorant public fear of
> nuclear power?

I don't know. The point is if we wish to predict accurate costs in
the real world bitching about how stupid the people are who have to
live around the plant isn't going to change those costs.

> How long did Shoreham (why *did* switch from Seabrook in our
> earlier discussion???)

Because Shoreham came up in my google search and Seabrook didn't?

> get delayed by a lot of pseudo-science
> dis-information about it?

It got delayed and ran over costs due to factors that exist in the
world today. Anyone who seeks to invest in nuclear power should be
aware of the impact those factors have on cost and take that into
account in their analysis. I did this.

You seem to be under the misapprehension I have some political agenda.
 I do not. I'm giving great credit to the nulear industry when I say
their all in total cost is $5.00 per watt. If I were striving for
hyperbole I'd say the number were more like infinity per watt. But I
didn't do that did I? No! Because I'm trying to make a simple point,
namely we cannot rely on nuclear power as its currently configured to
save us from the end of oil if it should come.

> Somewhat of a self-fullfilling thing when those
> protesting the high costs are the very ones that are creating many of the
> cost overruns and delays.

Bitching about your problems won't really change them - and doesn't
change the impact these problems have on cost. $5 per watt is a
reasonably optimistic figure.

> > Now admitttedly there are a lot of costs involved in Shoreham that
> > wouldn't be involved in a well managed and well regulated program.
>
> True.

Yes, but that's the point. Systems that are so fragile they explode
in cost or explode in real life and permanently damage vast tracts of
land making them uninhabitable if not precisely and properly managed
by people as organized capable and disciplined as a US nuclear sub
crew are not things that are worth investing in. Things must be a
little more forgiving. As far as public opposition goes, it exists
and bitching about it won't change the impact that has on cost. So, I
stand by my $5 per watt figure as a reasonably optimistic figure that
may be achieved with sufficient effort.

> But any large project that has a dedicated public opposition (even if
> misplaced) can be delayed for years, driving up the capital costs.

That's true - and that's got to be a factor in anyone's analysis of
the cost per watt of this power source.

> Especially if the opposition comes after you've begun construction and
> prevents you from going on line. Imagine if the large wind farm project
> planned off the shores of Martha's Vineyard had almost completed
> construction and *then* the protestors came out and delayed the start of
> operation by 5 years? 10 years? The compound interest of the debt (at 8%,
> somewhat less than the rates that Shoreham was paying during construction in
> 1980's) with no payments would double the cost in just 9 years.

I'd say they were as organized and ruthless as the anti-nuke crowd
that wanted to bankrupt those people who were investing in Shoreham.
But so what? Bitching about them won't change a damn thing. So, this
has to be factored into the analysis of real costs in the real world.
 
> >
> > But, also, we're talking here about construction costs only. What
> > about other fixed capital costs needed to support nuclear power
> > production at plants like Shoreham?
> >
> > Things like decommissioning and fuel processing?
> >
> > Clearly these add to the costs.
>
> Your first link suggests decommissioning costs would be ~$500M. On a 'per
> watt' basis, that would be about $0.61 per watt.

That's right. That's what they thought they could build it for.

> To get a future value of
> $500M at 8% over 40 years would require an annual payment of just under
> $2.M/year. That would add another $0.00031/kWh (0.31 mills/kWh). And as I
> have repeatedly pointed out the fuel costs (including all supply side
> processing) are accounted for in the cost of purchased fuel, and is less
> than 1/2 cent / kWh.

A lot of costs are swept under the rug and don't reflect the true all
in costs for processing. I doubt we'll ever agree on this. So, lets
agree to disagree and settle on $5 per watt shall we?

> These costs are only tiny additions, and you know that.

I know nothing of the kind.

> Why do you keep
> stating they would 'Clearly' add to the costs.

Because fuel processing assets to create the stream of fuel that a
reactor needs could cost as much as the reactors is serves. Because
the decommissioning and burial of waste after the plant shuts down
could cost more than the reactor itself. All these costs whatever
they are, should be borne by the reactor - not put off the books and
subsidized by the government.

> Add to the cost? yes. Any
> appreciable amount? no. Double it? Never.

Great! Show me in detail all the steps of creating nuclear fuel and
the total costs of each step over the entire life cycle of a nuclear
plant (including decommissioning costs of the fuel source) as well as
the detailed decommissioning costs involved in shutting down and
burying all elements of a nuclear reactor (and its spent fuel) If you
can do that and show it doesn't double the cost, then fine.
Otherwise, put up or shut up.

> >
> > Plainly, $5 per watt for nucleear is, given our experience with
> > nuclear in the real world, is a very optimistic figure, and anything
> > less than that just ludicrously fantastic.
>
> 'Plainly' you haven't done enough calculations or looked at enough
> references.

I'll accept $5 per watt as an achievable goal for new construction
properly managed. A poorly managed program could cost many times
this.

> Try it again with Seabrook, or any of the other 104 operating
> reactors. Anyone can look up the worst run economic disaster of a nuclear
> plant and say what you've been saying so far. But look at some of the
> successes.

Better yet, why don't you show me a table of all the plants, their
outputs and the total costs involved in operating them and
decommissioning them. Not what the rules require, not what shown on
some phoney balance sheets. Not what might happen under different
circumstances. Real costs in the real world and real output over time
and real decommissioning costs really paid out by all sources
everywhere they touch the plants. Provide a reliable reference for
this and it would speak for itself - and save you from having to speak
on their behalf.

>
> I've shown that the 'additional costs' you keep going on about do *not* add
> an appreciable amount to the cost of nuclear energy. Yet you seem to feel
> they double the costs from $2.50 per watt to $5.00 per watt. And then you
> say how 'very optimistic' you're being when in fact you are being the exact
> opposite.

Well, you just showed us a plant that if your power figure is right is
over $8 - that's in excess of $5, so in this case $5 is optimistic
isn't it? Of course it is.

> Choosing the lowest capacity factor you think you can get away
> with (mine are easily substantiated by industry reports).

Those reports are biased by selection effects and you know it.

> Choosing the most
> expensive, longest delayed plant you can find.

Bitching about real world delays and real world mismanagement won't
change the fact that you must build reactors in the real world with
real people and real managers. In this world, the real one, I think
$5 per watt is optimistic.

> Trying to leave the
> impression that decommissioning and fuel costs would double the overall cost
> (when you *know* they do not).

I know nothing of the sort - and given the absolute lack of direct
reliable references that have complete breakdown along the lines I've
mentioned - you don't either.

> And then come up with this hypocritical
> statement about how you're being so 'very optimistic' to try and show how
> 'fair' you've been in your analysis.

I'm merely telling you my opinions and where they come from. Don't
try to make me the bad guy when all you have to do is give us a
pointer a specific detailed pointer to a spread*** of data that
indicates without a doubt, without one shred of doubt what the total
cost of all plant operations are and what the total output has been of
all those plants and what the total cost will be of cleaning up those
plants.

Consider the mess East Germany is in cleaning up the remains of the
Soviet nuclear industry. These costs may be duplicated in the US when
everything is said and done. No matter what your biased reports say
otherwise.

> Either you haven't done the numbers, or you are trying to use 'sleight of
> hand' to make your case because the numbers do *not* support your
> statements.

How about just trying to give nuclear its due and coming up with a
reasonable number for real world construction in the future.

>
> >
> > But, even at $2.50 per watt - which is what you're proposing, energy
> > is too expensive to meet the needs of synthetic fuel production.
> >
>
> I was not suggesting that nuclear be used for synthetic fuel production.

Yes, but I was which was the whole point. People who say - gee we
won't have to worry about energy when oil runs out because we have
nuclear power - are wrong. We do have to worry because the cost of
energy the real costs we really pay, affect our standard of living in
an industrial society. Nuclear as currently configured won't cut it -
not at $5 per watt, not at $2 per watt. It won't cut it. Which is my
point.

> I
> only took exception of your use of capital costs for nuclear that you
> 'Clearly' seem to have pulled from thin air.

Wait a minute when I am able to break down my reasoning (which you
agree with), take it apart step by step, and come up with a number
that makes sense given the assumptions - its clearly not pulled out of
thin air. And you saying so won't make it so. Further, the fact that
the number I came up with ($5 per watt) is less than a number you came
up with for a real plant that was built in the real world ($8 per
watt) justifies calling my $5 per watt optimistic.

> Your deceptive use

Bull***. Now you're just engaging in propaganda.

> of capital
> costs on a 'per watt' basis without mentioning that nuclear's capacity
> factor is 3.5 times higher than solar is misleading.

Utter rot. I've said explicitly what my assumptions were. Nothing
misleading in that. You may recall I said specificaly that the
nuclear plant runs something like 6,500 hours per year for the nuclear
plant (assuming full capacity - in reality you'll run at less than
full capacity for more hours) and said specifically the solar plant
would run something like 2,000 hours for the solar plant (again
assuming full capacity - which isn't true at sunrise and sunset).

> And you add your
> opinions about such costs being 'clearly unbelievable' and other uninformed
> opinions you've been spouting about nuclear power, government subsidies,
> 'hidden' costs of fuel processing etc....

Yeah, I know what I said and it wasn't the mealy mouthed stuff you
ascribe here. I asked specific questions of you. I see you never
answered any of my questions with any solid data.

So, let me ask again - and people can draw their own conclusions. Why
would companies vie against other one another to buy a nuclear power
plant that has never produced power and never will produce power?
Clearly there is some other benefit than producing power the plant
offers. What is it?

> > This is my original point.
> >
> > SYNTHETIC FUEL PRODUCTION COSTS - AGAIN
> >
> > With $0.02 per kWh allocated to recurring costs - this figure is
> > uncontested between us - and $0.04 per kWh allocated to fixed capital
> > - obtains $0.06 per kWh.
> >
> > We agree that gasoline contains 34 kWh.
> >
> > Any chemical conversion process has capital costs which add roughly
> > $0.01 per KWh to the mix.
> >
> > The process itself is about 50% energy efficient (70% to produce
> > hydrogen, 70% to take hydrogen + carbon to hydrocarbon), so in the end
> > we have the following numbers;
> >
> > $0.07/kWh capital and nuclear fuel costs (using $2.50 per watt
> > figure) and 68 kWh per gallon (with efficiency losses) - obtains a
> > price of gas equal to $4.76 per gallon - which translates to a massive
> > shrinkage of our economy.
> >
> > A hydrogen economy on the other hand isn't so bad. We only need spend
> > $3.40 per gallon equivalent - but then we need to tie up massive
> > amounts of capital changing the way we do everything so that we may
> > use hydrogen.
> >
> >
> > Solar collectors collecting sunlight at a cost of $0.30 per Watt for a
> > period of 15 years in places that provide for 2,000 hours per year of
> > insolation have an energy cost of $0.017 per kWh. Add another $0.01
> > per kWh for chemical conversion and we have $0.0276 per kWh - which
> > obtains a price for gas equal to $1.87 per gallon - today's price.
> >
> > A hydrogen economy at these prices requires we spend only $1.33 per
> > gallon equivalent - which means there is a positive incentive to adopt
> > hydrogen over time.
>
> You seem to have ignored the large fraction of that $1.87 that is taxes.

So? We weren't having a discussion about taxes. I was talking about
what the maximum capital cost could be before we even had a chance of
displacing oil. I'm showing that $0.30 per watt is the highest
capital cost solar could sustain and still have a chance in hell at
displacing oil. Taxes as always increase the burden on capital and
require lower costs still.

> What is the actual cost of the conventionally produced gasoline?

Its reported on NYMEX each day.

> Or will
> your synthetic fuel be exempt from all the various taxes currently levied
> against road fuel?

I don't know. I do know however that unless the capital cost of solar
collectors are at less than $0.30 per watt it won't matter in any case
because they cannot sustain synthetic oil production competitively if
they're more expensive than this. Whatever the taxe rate is that
would translate to a lower cost still.

> If so, why do you suggest this?

I didn't you did. Another disinformation tactic. Make a statement
that's totally false and ascribe it to the person you're talking
about.

Please recall I'm communicating what the highest cost for solar could
be and still have a chance at displacing oil at a reasonable cost.

> Surely burning
> synthetic fuel in an ICE will not be completely free (perhaps CO2 neutral,
> but still all the other pollutants).

Depends on the details doesn't it.

> Many states fund their road
> maintenance from such taxes.

Which is appropriate since the fuel drives vehicles that destroy
roads.

> If we add on just 45 cents/gal excise/road
> tax, and 7% sales tax, we loose your 'incentive'.

SO, if half the cost is given over to taxes (which I don't think it is
- given the prices on NYMEX recently and comparing that to pump
prices) this means we've got to get solar down to $0.15 per watt to be
competitive while sustaining these taxes.

> For your plan to economically compete with existing fuels, your costs must
> be on a par with 'pre-tax' pump costs.

I agree, so its clear that the cost per watt must be below $0.30 per
watt - and if tax rates are 50% as you imply, it must be below $0.15
per watt.

IN EITHER CASE - its far lower than nuclear is ever likely to achieve
- although nuclear plants are about 4 times more capital efficient
because they run when its dark. That means they must sustain $2.40
per watt (if untaxed) or $1.20 per watt - if we want roads to travel
over and police to secure them. Which is lower than $5 per watt and
even lower than $2.50 per watt you're pushing.
 
> daestrom

Loading