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

From: brianb (bri1600bv_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: 11 Jul 2004 09:23:10 -0700

william.mook@mokindustries.com (william mook) wrote in message news:<407c5321.0407102232.48bdfb77@posting.google.com>...

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

What in god's name are you talking about? Last year nuclear power
plants put in something like $800 million into the fund. Reasonable
disposal costs wouldn't cost anywhere near this. "Spreading costs to
the government"? No! The government is charging them, not vice
versa. You keep asking for proof of a negative. You prove it costs
more than $800 million per year.

>
> 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.

You have no basis for insisting that the fuel isn't fully charged.
None whatsoever. The public price for uranium reserves is usually
listed in terms of "available at $40/kg" etc. "The costs charged
bears little relation.."? Why? Because you say so? There's a hidden
gov't subsidy in there? YOU PROVE IT!

>
> > 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.

All the costs of construction and maintenace....yes and those are
included in the price of construction as they would be for any plant.
"Fuel production infrastructure"...more gibberish...this is included
in the price of fuel, which is very low. If you think it isn't, then
PROVE IT. It's like saying the cost of coal at 3c/kwh doesn't include
the cost of mining the coal. Gibberish.

The ridiculous "$5.00 per watt" figure you keep citing is based on old
plants that had ridiculous cost overruns. It's not valid. Plants
have been standardized and liscensing stream-lined. Since Daestrom
actually works in the industry his idea of what a new plant would cost
is much more valid than yours. France built a plant of over 1000MW
for 2 billion. Why would you keep insisting you're right when you
don't have a clue. Citing Shoreham? Shoreham never produced a
watt..therefor the costs were infinite. Right? Ridiculous.

>
> > 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.

Nuclear plants aren't built b/c of public relations and b/c coal is
cheaper. At $2/MBTU gas was cheaper, which is what gas was for the
past 15 years.
O&M is not the "largest cost"? Of course its not. Capital costs are.
At $200M amortization for a $2B, 1000MW plant, that's 8B kwh for $200M
or .025c/kwh. Simple. Plus fuel and operation and maintenace of
2c/kwh.
4.5c/kwh all costs included, including throwing $8M in there for
disposal costs of 150 tons of spent fuel.

Gas capital is about 1/4 of that. Gas fuel at $2/MBTU and 60%
efficiency was a little over 1c/kwh. Operation costs are low. Try to
compete with that.

>
> > > > 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

Public utilities disclose costs. But they're "Bull". You're
ridiculous. YOU PROVE THEY'RE BULL.

>
> > The 'check' written to GNF is pretty
> > straight accounting.
>
> Yet all the costs are not covered by that check.
PROVE IT!

>
> > 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?

Figures I've seen are just as low. Prove otherwise.

>
> > 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.

GE hides losses? Why? Out of the goodness of their heart? PROVE IT.

>
> 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.

Probably b/c they paid such a high amount in capital for their plants.
 Has no bearing on plants today which are designed differently and
would probably be 1/2 the cost if that.

France has very low electricity costs for Europe and uses 80% nuclear.
 Let me guess: "there are hidden subsidies in there...prove there are
not". No, you prove it.

>
> 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.

One possible explanation. Others are mentioned above, ie gas is (was)
cheaper.

>
>
> > 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!

Prove that it's not making a profit and that there is a hidden
subsidy.
Better yet, give a reason why there would be.

>
> > 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.

Break me out GE's plastics division. See? They're really subsidizing
it. It's a money loser.

>
> 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
>
> > > We're presently less than $0.03

Look if you can produce power than cheaply, why don't you? What's all
this nonsense about "negotiating with governments for large amount of
land", etc. It sounds like a fantasy. If you could do what you say
you can do, all you'd need is a demonstration product, some patents,
and a decent lawyer. Demonstrate the project and sign up liscensees.
They'll do all the investing and heavy lifting, you'll just sit back
and collect checks. You've been on here for a couple years with a
project that could change the world...and your website looks like it
was designed by a jr. high school student. Something isn't right.

You're obviously very smart. Why don't you do this? Why insist on
doing all the work yourself? It makes it seem like you're delusional
and maybe the whole thing is a fraud.

> > >

Relevant Pages