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

From: william mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: 10 Jul 2004 23:32:51 -0700

daestrom@twcny.rr.com (daestrom) wrote in message news:<2862e26f.0406241718.5771327e@posting.google.com>...
> william.mook@mokindustries.com (william mook) wrote in message news:<407c5321.0406141811.64d2f8d6@posting.google.com>...
> > "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.
>
> Fuel costs are on a per kWhr (energy) basis, not per watt (capacity).

So? Please recall that it takes time for a generator of a given power
to make energy. And, that money tied up in a generator has time
value. Therefore, we can figure a relation between the cost of
generator capacity and the cost of energy. This is particularly
important in cases where the cost of the generator predominates. This
includes nuclear energy and solar energy generators.

> Current nuclear fuel prices are for the supply side of the cycle only.
> Disposal has not yet begun, but licensees are paying the federal
> govt. to create a disposal site.

Spreading the costs to the government won't change the impact of those
costs on the economics of energy. An industrial economy must pay for
the energy it uses. Decreasing energy costs mean greater energy
intensity and higher living standards. Increasing energy costs mean
lower energy intensity and lower living standards. I expect there may
be a limit - comparable to Schumpeter's limit for tax rates - above
which industrial lifestyles are abandoned altogether. While this may
be welcomed by environmentalists it is unlikely to be welcomed by
humanists since abandoning industrial processes altogether would
likely spell the end of the bulk of humanity living today.

> This funding is coming from the
> operating revenues of each plant.

The total cost versus the total energy is what's important. At $5 per
watt or more, nuclear isn't a viable energy source in any context. At
$2.50 per watt or more nuclear cannot make synthetic fuels cheaply
enough to displace fossil fuels. At $0.60 per watt, nuclear could
displace fossil fuels with nuclear generated synthetic fuels.

Comparable figures for solar, given solar energy's low utilization -
is roughly, $1 per watt for electrical displacement, $0.35 per watt
for synthetic fuels - and $0.15 per watt to displace fossil fuels with
synthetic fuels.

> I posted some numbers for fuel and O&M costs in another message.
> Unfortunately, my ISP's news-server doesn't show it, but I did see
> this message on google. So here are some numbers again...
>
> One plant (not a top performer) has an annual fuel cost of ~$22M -
> $23M. Their O&M costs are about $150M.

The costs charged for nuclear fuels bear little relation to their
total cost of production, even so, I agree the fuel costs are a small
part of the total - capital costs are the largest.

> With a capacity factor of 96%
> and net output of 850MWe. This works out to a yearly cost for fuel
> and operation of $173M and an annual output of 7.19e+9 kWh. About 2.4
> cents per kWh

If all you were doing is paying the government set rates for nuclear
fuels, then nuclear would be golden. But you're not. You're paying
for all the costs of the nuclear fuels plus all the costs of
construction and maintenance, and all the costs of cleanup of both the
power plant the spent fuels, and the portion of the fuel production
infrastructure that supplied the fuels to your plant. Adding all this
in gets you something greater than $5.00 per watt and something that's
not competitive on a kWh basis.

> A top performer that I know of had a capacity factor 96% last year, an
> O&M budget of $98M and annual fuel costs of $28M. This works out to
> 1.3 cents per kWh generated.

But this is not the only cost and its not the largest cost. So, its
not a good predictor of real costs. Which is why folks who have
invested in nuclear power don't have the capital to invest more, or
the inclination to invest more.

> >
> > > > 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.
>
> See above. It isn't 'fudged' they are out of a plants internal
> budgeting report and such.

Bull

> The 'check' written to GNF is pretty
> straight accounting.

Yet all the costs are not covered by that check.

> The O&M costs at a nuc are something on the
> order of 70% labor costs. With a staff between 500 and 750 (depending
> on the plant), you can 'ball park' the O&M as (700 people X
> $100000/yr)/0.70 => $100M.

Why not look at DOE EIA figures, or the figures reported by NRC, or
even the 10ks reported by the publicly traded companies who own
nuclear plants?

> Plants in higher cost of living areas such
> as the northeast, the numbers are somewhat higher (~$130M)
>
> GNF (GE Nuclear Fuels) is one of the suppliers of nuclear fuel. You
> can be pretty sure they aren't selling fuel at a loss.

Bull. GE is a large conglomerate. They could operate the GNF at a
loss forever and still make money - if they had a reason to.

Here's some information GE reports about their nuclear business
 
http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_nuclear/en/index.htm

Despite this I couldn't see where they reported their profits and loss
from this division.

Here are some filings from nuclear plant operators though - check it
out;

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/richard.leftwich/teaching/Trash/More%20Trash/keyspan98_files/filing_raw.htm

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/richard.leftwich/teaching/Trash/More%20Trash/baycorp98_files/filing_raw.htm

They make huge distinctions between their nuclear and non-nuclear
components, and point out that the losses they suffer are due in large
measure to the massive losses they suffer from the operation of their
nuclear assets.

This suggests that no one is making money in nuclear energy at the
moment. Which suggests and explanation as to why no new nuclear
plants are being built.

> Their price
> includes their procurement, manufacturing, engineering analysis and
> shareholder ROI.

You assume GE Nuclear Fuels division is making a profit counting only
income earned from the sale of nuclear fuels - without providing any
evidence whatever that this is so. Then, you go from this unwarranted
assumption to wide ranging conclusions without any analysis or data
whatever. Utter rot!
 
> http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_nuclear/en/index.htm

Ha! Same reference. Did you read it? Where is the profit and loss
and cash flow statements for the nuclear fuels division alone? I
couldn't find any. Point me to them and show me they're complete and
so forth, and you have proven your point.

http://www.ge.com/ar2002/editorial/index3.jsp

Note, that the 2002 Annual report from GE highlights the work of Steve
Zwolinski and Steve Ramsey - but doesn't say a word about its nuclear
fuels and the liabilities of those.

http://www.citact.org/nucrep.html
 
> > > 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.
>
> Well, that is certainly lower than nuclear (after combining fuel, O&M
> *and* capital costs).

Yep.

> I just wanted to set the record straight about
> the current costs of nuclear.

I think you're off by a factor of two if you think total costs are
$2.50 per watt.

> Some of your information about it seems
> dated.

Really?

> Average plant capacity factors have risen dramatically in the
> past 10 to 12 years.

Well, the list of nuclear reactors built in the US is pretty short.
Why not take all of those and add up their hours of operation over the
years and provide solid evidence of your statement here.

> And O&M costs have dropped as well.

Again, public records of costs should bear this out if true. Where
are they?

> daestrom

Relevant Pages
Loading