Re: Uranium availability

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:09:17 -0400, "daestrom"
<daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"T. Keating" <tkusenet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kqam635jf6bsg4jma3vl6arf9fhtklc90f@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:38:36 -0400, "daestrom"
<daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"T. Keating" <tkusenet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:epla63101uikndmp92hqsj1gfm95ekmck5@xxxxxxxxxx
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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
****Note this number ****



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..

No, time for you to learn some math skills and develop some reading
comprehension.

Do you know what the 'median' of sample of data is?? I'll give you a
hint,
it is not 'average'. Did you read the cite that I gave you that listed
the

I gave you an overall average.. of total units in the US..
(or ~25% of the reactors in commercial service worldwide. )

No need for a better sample.. Mr. Dumbo..
(100% data collection of a given area is way better than any sample.)

capacity factors? Have you given up on your 'made up terminology'?? Are
you still fantasizing about nucs using 'steam bypass' to load follow?

Of the 104 plants mentioned in your cite, did you bother to notice that
one
of those plants, rated at 1125 MWe hasn't operated for 22 years? It's
still
on the listing of capacity because it has not been formally
decommissioned.
In fact, in 2007 it returned to service.

So what.. it was built.. it's debt had to be serviced. site required
maintenance, etc .. DOE declared it Out of Service. A direct
consequence of it's operation and resulting fire that occurred.
(Extended downtime of a reactor is it to be included, just like any
other power source you been comparing) .

Even if BF #1 had been operational, it's Theoretical output would
have shifted the resulting calculation by another percent, or so,
(2004(T), 85% ->86%) ...

P.S. 85% for 2004.. 84.5% for 2005 Actual GNP verses net production
is FAR AND AWAY from the FAIRY TAIL figures that you post to these
newsgroups. (A major deception == A LIE.)

No, you still don't seem to grasp the difference between

Let's see... The most up to date authoritative links detailing actual
multi-year performance of a large sample staring Daestrom right in his
face and he still denies reality.

Sounds like Episode 53 of Startrek TOS("The Ultimate Computer") is
ringing truer everyday, especially the ending..

snip...

The 'fairy tail' figures I posted are from the NEI.

I've posted authoritative DOE links, done the math, and you haven't .
Where are your authoritative links? Where is your math? What's your
sample size? In this instance, recent performance 2004(85%) ,
2005(84.5%) is a likely predictor of future performance.

P.S. NEI is a industry sponsored organization..
(I.E. Mostly propaganda, you'll have to find a better source..)

And just in case you haven't noticed yet.. Besides thermal derating,
Nuclear power plants consume a significant fraction of their
electrical output. Operating dozens of pumps ranging in the (500 to
8000 HP) class, plus the requisite cooling fans all consuming
electrical energy in the MW ranges.

snip..

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Camry Hybrid prices
    ... Yes but once they are down to about 50% of their original capacity, ... BSP for stationary battery plants. ... cells, or Lead-Calcium Absorbed Glass Mat "low maintenance" cells in ... I"ve changed those wet batteries. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: 26 "Things That Do Not Make Sense"
    ... 75% of capacity to 100% of capacity? ... you don't like to run big nuclear plants like that at less than ... capacity to help deal with variable load, are they wasting nuclear fuel? ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Played power grid for the first time
    ... :>:tend to buy lots of new power plants. ... :> have cities, you're better off building cities than buying ... If you want to have the capacity to power 13 ... :regularly upgrade my plants to make my capacity grow with my cities. ...
    (rec.games.board)
  • Re: Uranium availability
    ... for a two year run of the median plant is 93%, ... Existing Capacity by Energy Source, ... Generator Name plate capacity ... Of the 104 plants mentioned in your cite, did you bother to notice that one of those plants, rated at 1125 MWe hasn't operated for 22 years? ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Played power grid for the first time
    ... :>:tend to buy lots of new power plants. ... :> have cities, you're better off building cities than buying ... If you want to have the capacity to power 13 ...
    (rec.games.board)