Re: Uranium availability
- From: T. Keating <tkusenet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:51:15 -0400
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:37:04 -0400, "daestrom"
<daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"T. Keating" <tkusenet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7hr763h36i2g15f64q0hi2re9m9s70guv0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:04:27 -0400, "daestrom"
<daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Care to explain how the 'plant capacity factor' for the median US nuc is so
much higher then your made up terminology?? If a plant's capacity factor
for a two year run of the median plant is 93%, how can it's
duty-factor*production-factor be only .855 ??
Because you contrived up your own facts and figures..
Now for SOME HARD FACTS nothing like a hard
dose of the truth to interject into a debate.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
Net generation by source..
(Thousand megawatt hours.)
2004.. 788,528
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html
Table 2.2. Existing Capacity by Energy Source, 2005
(Megawatts)
Nuclear
Energy Source
Nuclear
Number of Generators
104
Generator Name plate capacity
105,585
Net Summer Capacity
99,988
Net Winter Capacity
101,524
==== calculations ======
Name plate capacity
105,585MW * 366 days (2004 leap year) * 24 == 927,459 (theoretical
thousand megawatt hours.)
788,528 / 927,459 == 85.0% (actual 2004 production verses rated name
plate. )
Same calculations for 2005..
781,986 / 924,925 == 84.5% (actual 2005 production verses rated name
plate. )
Time to eat crow.. Mr. Daestrom..
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Uranium availability
- From: daestrom
- Re: Uranium availability
- References:
- Re: Uranium availability
- From: daestrom
- Re: Uranium availability
- From: T . Keating
- Re: Uranium availability
- From: daestrom
- Re: Uranium availability
- Prev by Date: US Dept of Energy report on Wind Power May 2007
- Next by Date: Extending nuclear fuel supplies out forever
- Previous by thread: Re: Uranium availability
- Next by thread: Re: Uranium availability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|