Re: Uranium availability


"T. Keating" <tkusenet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:hofk735081fbbfupei4je1or6m43vtq4bj@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:54:02 -0400, "daestrom"
<daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"daestrom" <daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:467492d2$0$4721$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"T. Keating" <tkusenet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:420q63l0cl2n0bn8k26felqhrrvtium3et@xxxxxxxxxx
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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ GENERATOR NAME PLATE (from my post)

Net Summer Capacity
99,988
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NET SUMMER CAPACITY (from my post)


Net Winter Capacity
101,524
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NET WINTER CAPACITY (from my post)


==== 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. )

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What's this 788,528.. (from my post)..



Same calculations for 2005..
781,986 / 924,925 == 84.5% (actual 2005 production verses rated name
plate. )


Time to eat crow.. Mr. Daestrom..

Now, let's go back to the www.eia.doe.gov web site that Mr. Keating is so
fond of and look at the data again.

Gee, it seems that
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/usreactors2004.xls
doesn't agree with his quotation. The EIA has numbers of 788,528,387 MW-hrs

Doesn't agree????
My post&link matches actual production to less than 0.0001%..


for 2004, and an installed capacity for the 104 licensed reactors of 99,628
MW. For an 'average' capacity factor of 90.1%

Bzzzt... As Usual You're WRONG... I used GENERATOR NAME PLATE
capacity. The calculations were clearly spelled out.


Which has *nothing* to do with the net capacity of a plant. That number isn't even the *gross* output of a plant (before in-house loads are supplied).

*NO* plant in the country (nuc, hydro, wind, coal, gas-turbine, etc...) calculates net capacity factor the way you suggest. Making up your own 'math' is pretty lame.

Shows just how little you know about plant ratings. The name plate capacity of the *generator* is not the gross or net capacity of the plant anymore than the feed-pump flow 'name plate rating' is the total feed-flow to a boiler. The plant output rating is determined by the most limiting component. For nucs, that's the licensed reactor output, not the size of the generator. For coal, it is often the firing rate of the boiler, and for hydro it is often limited by water management schemes.

Typical design strategy is to get a generator that will be large enough to carry the expected plant output with a relatively 'low' power factor of 0.85 to 0.90. Then the plant can be uprated some time in the future (say, 15-20 years) by simply operating the generator at a higher pf and not have to replace/rewind it. So the 'generator name plate capacity' seldom reflects the plant's output capability to an exact amount.

It's also not uncommon to raise plant output by simply changing out the turbine rotors. Technology has improved over the past 40 years to allow 'high performance steam path' rotors that will produce more shaft hp for the same steam flow, and since the generator rating that was installed originally is 'oversized' by a few percent, no generator change out is required when doing this.

Heck, just changing the steam control valves can change the output capability of some units. Go from partial-arc to full-arc admission to reduce throttle losses. All these things go into the 'net capacity', while your 'generator name plate' rating is not changed.

Same type of thing applies to coal, gas-turbine, even hydro. But if you *were* an expert, you'd know that.

Not NET summer capacity.. nor NET winter capacity.. nor NET any
other time.

Which I pointed out previously, using NET production factor is NOT a
valid measurement when used to comparing energy production factors
with other intermittent production technologies. (Which consume
almost nothing.)

P.S.. NET == Production - Consumption (which is significant)..

What other fudge figures are you going to throw in??

The sad fact is that you, keep pushing another dying technology that
will never pay for itself without massive subsidies and cost shifting.

Other then the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (which no operating nuc has benefited from), what 'massive subsidies' you talking about? The fact that all nuclear reactors in the country have pooled their resources to insure the public from an accident? The Price-Andersen act does just that. It doesn't provide for any tax dollars to insure the liability until every reactor operator in the country has paid first.

And lets see, so far it's had to pay out $0, even after TMI. Hmmm, wonder what the feds have been doing with all those premiums that nucs have been paying. When nucs pay the feds and get nothing in return, that's not called a 'subsidy'.


We're long overdue me we dumped the risky technologies into the waste
bin and shifted to renewables. The N-risk is clearly spelled out in
nearly every homeowners or automobile insurance policy.. Nuclear
incidents and contamination are NOT covered!!!!

My policy doesn't have such a clause and there are four reactors within 50 miles of my home). But it does have a clause about not covering floods, even if caused by man-made constructions such as dams or levees. Want to debate the 'subsidies' that every hydro-plant in the country is receiving because of this?

1) You were wrong in your 'made up' terms like, 'duty factor' and 'actual production factor'
2) You were wrong in calculating a capacity factor from 'generator name plate rating'
3) You were wrong in trying to throw in construction time as impacting uranium availablity
4) You were wrong in spouting nonsense about using 'bypass steam' for controlling load because of 'slow thermal response time' (another made up term??)
5) You were wrong to try and bring in the internal load when discussing 'net capacity'
6) You were wrong in using 'average' when 'median' is much more appropriate
7) You were wrong in accusing me of using 'contrived numbers' when the numbers I used came from DOE, same reference as you.
8) You were wrong stating that 2004 from DOE was the 'most up to date authoritative link' since DOE also has 2005, 2007 and several months of 2007.
9) You were wrong to use just a single year's generation when most plants run either 18 or 24 month fuel cycles.

Why would you do this unless you're practicing a deliberate dis-information campaign? That would explain why you do your own 'math' and create your own terminology. It would also explain why you try to sound all 'technical', making up additional issues like 'slow thermal process' and the need for 'bypass steam'. And why you drag out 'red herrings' like internal power consumption subtracting further from the 'net' output and plant construction time.

If you really want to become 'expert' in power plant economics, you've got a lot of studying to do. Otherwise, you should stop opening your mouth and trying to impress people that obviously know much more about the subject than yourself.

One wonders just what else you get wrong on a routine basis. It's clear you are just 'anti-nuc' and are spewing made-up terms and made-up scenarios to try and prove your position. You get data from DOE and then make up your own definition of 'capacity factor' while ignoring the numbers for capacity factor posted by DOE.

daestrom

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Uranium availability
    ... For an 'average' capacity factor of 90.1% ... Which has *nothing* to do with the net capacity of a plant. ... *NO* plant in the country (nuc, hydro, wind, coal, gas-turbine, etc...) ... of the *generator* is not the gross or net capacity of the plant anymore ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Uranium availability
    ... Existing Capacity by Energy Source, ... isn't even the *gross* output of a plant (before in-house loads are ... If a type of plant has very few internal loads, that shows in its output rating being *closer* to the 'generator name plate' rating. ... a nuc costs a lot more then a wind plant. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Weymouth and Olympics
    ... Doubling it would have no effect on capacity (because of the ... For a few weeks a diesel generator could be added to the system and ... IIRC a mobile generator was used in France in the 1950s to boost the ... When trains are late even a short single line can ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Smaller DIY Watermaker
    ... generator which, based on it's output, will be used to size the ... it looks like the largest electric motor possible is a 3/4HP. ... I'm still trying to find other ways to increase the system's capacity. ... Using the eu2000 generator as a power source for watermaking has ...
    (rec.boats.cruising)
  • Re: Uranium availability
    ... Existing Capacity by Energy Source, ... Do you know what the 'median' of sample of data is?? ... When you are working with something like a plant capacity factor, that cannot fit a 'normal distribution' curve, the 'average' can easily be skewed into a very misleading number. ... And how many other power generation facilities include decommissioning times and construction times in their plant capacity factors? ...
    (sci.energy)
Loading