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

From: daestrom (daestrom_at_NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com)
Date: 07/07/04 

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:08:13 GMT

"william mook" <william.mook@mokindustries.com> wrote in message
news:407c5321.0407041943.19b89684@posting.google.com...
> "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.
>

It is easy to be dismissive and claim bias without offering any proof. The
plain truth is, nuc plants run a lot better than the average manufacturing
plant. If I *really* wanted to be biased and pick the 'cream-of-the-crop',
the reported capacity factor for some plants is >99.0 % for a non-refueling
year and >95% for a refueling year (the shortest refueling outage on record
is 15 days).

The +90% is *not* for any single plant. It is the *industry* average. You
know, add up the capacity factor for all 104 operating plants and divide by
104. This means *many* plants operate somewhat above 90% and only a few
operate very far below.

> > >
> > > 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?

The very page you purported to get the capacity for Shoreham.....
> > > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v2/
Looking under the Appendix A for the 'Shoreham' plant, we see 819. The only
plant on *your* supplied link that is 650MWe is Oyster Creek. How did you
come up with 650MWe for Shoreham????????

>
> > 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.

Fine, here is *your* reference again....
> > > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v2/
Scroll down about 3/4 to find 'Shoreham' listed in Appendix A. The plants
are listed in alphabetical order, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding
it. After all, this is the link you provided the *first* time.

 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.
>

Still 'cherry-picking' the *worst* example to choose??? Now who is being
biased and not taking a representative sample. Practice your own teachings.

> > 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.
>

"Our experience with nuclear power" is not represented by the worst economic
example that you chose. Surely you should take a more averaged approach
(inflation adjusted off course). Do you think that since it is the *most*
expensive, (and supports your argument) that it is the best choice for "our
experience with nuclear power"?? That is wrong in so many ways. What about
plants that have gone commercial *since* the Shoreham project was stopped?
Maybe we should look at *those* examples too??? But wait, they probably
don't support your position, so you 'conveniently' ignore the data. What a
poor research technique.

> > 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.

No, but it points out that some of the costs *can* be reduced through public
education with a minimal investment. Some of the capital costs are fixed by
educating the public, not changing the plant.

>
> > 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?

You started with Seabrook in your initial arguments about the high cost of
nuclear. Including it's capital costs. Since you already had the
references for Seabrook, why did you go back and google again? Didn't their
numbers make a dramatic enough point for your argument?? Seems like you
went back and found the worst debacle you could just to 'prove' your point.

>
> > 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.

More hyperbole, 'fragile', 'explode in real life', 'permanently damage vast
tracts of land...if not precisely managed' These are phrases employed to
scare people about the risks of something they don't understand. It shows
an irrational inflation of the risks without putting them in perspective
with other daily risks in our lives.

> 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.
>

Yet you can only show 'thin air' as a reference. Construction and capital
costs, on average, are not that high. Nor do decommissioning and fuel costs
add appreciably to the cost per kWh.

<snip>
> > >
> > > 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.

And how many plants have actually *been* built for < $1.00 per watt? Hint:
Bet the answer is not zero.

>
> > 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.

More hand-waving and innuendo. I could easily state (without supplying any
references either), that your costs for solar PV are woefully low and don't
include "a lot of costs are swept under the rug and don't reflect the true
all-in costs". You would get all defensive and argue that it isn't so. And
you would demand I supply some proof to my claims.

So, where is your proof of these claims??

>I doubt we'll ever agree on this. So, lets
> agree to disagree and settle on $5 per watt shall we?

No, why should I settle for your *unsubstantiated* position and give up
mine? Why don't we just settle on $2.25 per watt shall we?? I've provided
some figures, references and analysis to support the position that
decom/fuel costs do not add appreciably to the cost per kWh. You quickly
shift back to cost per watt again (even when you agreed cost /kWh is a valid
method to include different operating styles and that cost / *energy* is the
goal). You've provided nothing but one particularly bad nuclear plant
example and claim "our experience with nuclear power" supports your figure.
Apparently, your experience with nuclear power is limited to only the worst
plant in history.

>
> > 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.

Any proof? The fuel manufacturing industry is not govt' assisted, yet
supplies an ROI for its shareholders from the current prices it sells fuel.
The fuel price is < 1/2 cent / kWh. See previous posts.

> Because
> the decommissioning and burial of waste after the plant shuts down
> could cost more than the reactor itself.

Any proof? Decommissioning costs (say $500M) is less than 1 mill/kWh. See
previous posts.

You persist in these 'statements' without offering any support. I
repeatedly challenge you for supporting documents, yet you have not provided
any documents to support them.

> All these costs whatever
> they are, should be borne by the reactor - not put off the books and
> subsidized by the government.

Any proof of them being 'off the books and subsidized'?? Those costs *are*
born by the reactor, yet you persist in this fantasy about secret government
subsidies. You're beginning to sound like a crack-pot conspiracy buff.

>
> > 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.

Since you persist in the fantasy that there is some secret government
subsidies for all these phases, it is pointless. You aren't debating
rationally, you're fantasizing. Fuel manufacturers operate in a market
economy. Decommissioning of plants is fully funded by operating revenue
(perhaps even *over* funded). Spent fuel disposal is the only aspect that
the actual costs haven't been proven. Yet the Yucca mtn project continues
to be funded by commercial reactor revenues.

Since fuel manufacturers are public companies, owned by shareholders, many
of their operating and capital costs are documented in their financial
statements. But of course, you'll just accuse them of some secret coverup,
so you probably won't bother reading them.

> > >
> > > 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.

Your repeated statements about 'secret government subsidies', 'hidden costs'
and 'phoney balance sheets' indicate you're *not* really interested in any
facts, just don't want to admit ignorance. You apparently would rather make
up another conspiracy than agree to any reference data.

In your very statement, you're showing that you will *not* accept any data,
that you've closed your mind to the issue and have no debatable point.

I don't show you a 'table of all the plants, and their total costs' because
that information isn't all publicly available. And you know it isn't
public. But *not* for some silly coverup or other bizzare conspiracy
theory. They aren't all public for the simple fact that private enterprises
do not reveal all their books for fear of giving their competition an unfair
advantage.

Care to reveal all of your company's records and project costs? No, I
suppose not. But then you expect me to have access to nuclear owners
company records?

> >
> > 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.

Silly. YOU picked the plant. I merely showed that when you site a
reference for Shoreham and state 650MW from the reference, you merely proved
you can't read YOUR OWN reference.

How about you go find another plant? Why don't you go find 5 plants costs,
and then come back?

>
> > 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.
>

You're making things up again. Those reports are *industry* average for the
104 operating plants. If you took the time to *read*, you might have to eat
your words. But you'd rather just lie and use innuendo when facts won't do.

> > 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.

And in the *real* world, the average costs of all the nuclear plants in this
country are *not* represented by your obviously *biased* choice. Speaking
of *real* world, why don't you get the costs for several plants instead of
the worst one? Is your research ability *that* poor?

*REAL* world analysis demands you use more than just one plant. Come on,
join the *real* world.

>
> > 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.

Let's see, the NRC reference *you* provided? The NEI data for capacity
factor? You complain about these resources being unreliable, yet you know
that they are the logical choices to find such information. Sure, let's go
look at GreenPeace, I'll bet they have some 'reliable' references for
nuclear plant performance.

>
> > 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.

Well, now you admit they are 'opinions'. Yet 'where they come from' is
still a bit vague. Your 'opinion' is the balance sheets of nuclear owners
are 'phoney'. Your 'opinion' is that fuel processing is somehow subsidized.
Your 'opinion' is that decommissioning and waste disposal add a lot to the
cost per kWh.

But you are spouting 'your opinion' as facts that you can't substantiate.
There *is* a difference between stating 'your opinion' and 'fact'.

> 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.

I've told you what fuel costs are. Less than 1/2 cent/kWh. When you
couldn't refute that, you claim 'hidden', 'phoney', 'subsidies' (without
evidence).

*Your* reference showed decommissioning could be as high as $500M. I easily
showed you this is <$2M/year and <1 mill/kWh. So again you refute with
statements about 'hidden', 'phoney', 'subsidies'.

I've pointed out your capital cost determination (using the highest priced
debacle you could find) are flawed because they use the max, not the mean,
median or any other reasonable way to predict future costs.

Your analysis uses selective data, you load on other costs that you claim
will add appreciably, yet I have shown that they do not. You agreed that
cost per kWh is a better way to calculate the economics of a power plant,
but then revert to cost per watt when it suits your argument.

But, no, you're not the 'bad guy'. You're either the 'bad guy' trying to
discredit nuclear, or you're an incredibly inept researcher. I can only
guess which.

>
> 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.
>

Gee, when I mentioned the successes of nuclear in other countries, you shut
out that discussion. Obviously you didn't want to discuss the successes in
France, Japan, S. Korea or Taiwan. But now you want to discuss the failures
in a soviet state?

Sorry, you ruled out everywhere but the US a couple of weeks ago. No fair
changing the rules now.

> > 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.
>

Problem is, your definition of 'reasonable', isn't. It requires worst case
economics, fabricated capacity factors, 'gut feeling' opinions with no
facts, and constantly shifting analysis tools like 'cost per ?????'

> > 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.

You haven't done that. You *claim* to, but you haven't. You just list a
number, then rattle on about how all these 'other' costs will 'clearly' do
this, or that.

I've shown where some of your assumptions (like 70% capacity factor) are in
error, and you merely dismiss the reference as 'biased.' Then you state how
those figures are only for the best run plants without reading carefully
enough to find they are the industry average.

You start with an assumed plant life of 20 years, and in later posts up the
number to 30. Your own NRC reference page, shows that 33 of the 104 plants
are 30 years or older right now. Didn't you take the time to figure that
out from your own reference? 53 of the 104 plants went into commercial
operation before 1979, making them 25 years old today. Of the 14 plants
that have been shutdown, or never went on-line, *one* listed in your
reference was built after 1974. Gee, now I wonder if you can guess what
plant that was?? You picked it, it's Shoreham (just a coincidence that you
picked that one, I'm sure).

Do you have some inside information that you believe half the plants in the
country are going to shutdown in the next 5 years? Otherwise, half the
plants in the country will be over 30.

> 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.

No, *I* didn't come up with the number. You picked Shoreham. You then
mis-quoted your own reference and said it was a 650MW plant and came up with
>$13. I merely *corrected* your quote to use the correct capacity of the
plant *you* selected.

I still maintain that you deliberately picked the most expensive nuclear
plant ever. So much for an 'optimistic' approach.

>
> Utter rot. I've said explicitly what my assumptions were. Nothing
> misleading in that.

Except that your assumptions for nuclear costs, capacity factor and lifetime
don't agree with reality. And when supplied with some alternate numbers,
you claim 'phoney', 'biased', 'only the best run'.

> 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 may recall I took exception with 6,500 hours as being unrealistic.
And have offered some references to refute your number.

>
> > 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.

Your NRC reference shows plant operational date, from which plant life is
easily determined (not solid when I use it? but okay for you??) NEI's
industry average (you dismiss as biased and 'optimistic' using only the best
run plants when it clearly states it is the industry average). You *assume*
70% with no scientific basis (unless you count that Coca-Cola plant as
demonstrative).

It's easy for you to repeatedly claim *any* data source as not 'solid data'
when you don't provide any of your own. How about it? What were the costs
of 5 nuclear plants. What *is* the capacity factor of the *worst*, *median*
and *best* nuclear plants?

>
> 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?
>

Your question contains two false premises and so is not valid. Companies
are buying plants that are *currently* operating, and plants that *may*
operate in the future. Nobody is buying Shoreham (a plant that will never
operate). Nobody is buying Big Rock, or Yankee Rowe. The only
non-operating plants being sought after are those with a real possibility of
being completed and/or started up (despite your uninformed assertion that
they 'never will produce power').

If your implied theory were true, these plants (like Shoreham) would be just
as attractive, yet they are not. Why is this? If your theory is to be
believed, then every plant that is off-line would be snatched off the
market. Do you have an explanation for why this isn't happening? Does it
fit in with the rest of your conspiracy theory?

>
> > > 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.

Right, good reference. Looks like $1.27/gal today. So why did you say
$1.87 ?? Another *assumption* on your part? Pump price maybe?? (but that
would include taxes). If you're using $1.87 at the pump (with taxes) and
comparing that with your production costs of $1.33 (without taxes), then
you're comparing apples to oranges. Why would you do this?? Where did you
get $1.87 if not at the pump??

>
> > 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.

No, the difference between my asking a followup question ('IF SO, WHY....")
and your technic. "Clearly" not a 'disinformation tactic'.

> Make a statement
> that's totally false and ascribe it to the person you're talking
> about.

Nope. You aren't reading too well. I asked a question, "Or will your
.....?", followed by a follow up question, "If so, .....?"

Such poor reading. You're starting to jump to conclusions and go off before
reading the statement/question.

> > 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.

I don't imply what the tax rates are. (and 'clearly' 45 cents is *not* 50%
of $1.87) They vary from state to state (even municipality). I only chose
45 cents and 7% as they are the local numbers in my area (pump price here is
$2.03 today). I merely am stating that comparing your production costs
($1.33) with pump prices ($1.87??) is wrong. You either did it on purpose
to be deceptive, or you made a glaring error. Your reference of NYMEX shows
that unleaded gas has peaked in May at about $1.40/gal and is currently at
$1.27/gal, while in Jan/Feb was about $1.00/gal.

So again, *where* did the $1.87 number come from? Is it the pump price in
your area, or did you just pull *that* number out of thin air as well?

But depending on which historical price, and/or what prediction for futures,
yes, your $0.30 per watt just might, (or might not) be low enough to
compete. But not the $1.87 vs. $1.33 difference you mentioned before.

daestrom

Loading