Re: Uranium availability

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:54:21 -0400, "daestrom"
<daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"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. )

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 2004 calculation.. (from my post)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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. )

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 2005 calculation.... (from my post)



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%

If it's an average.. then why did you use NET SUMMER CAPACITY as the
divisor???? Using NET WINTER CAPACITY as the divisor drops that
number down to 88.7%


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).

Why use Net SUMMER capacity instead of Net WINTER capacity as the
divisor?? Or an average of the two.. Because it's a sham
measurement. And net anytime capacity, (your divisor), drops off as
the ambient temperature of the environment increases

*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.

Wind .. PV.. don't have any operating loads to speak of..
So why do you insist on comparing apples to oranges..

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

You and your ilk constantly rail about each Wind turbine not
reaching it's name plate output. B.T.W. Which is a lot more cost
effective than nukes.

As for overall production factor, let's add in the time of
construction and removal into the mix, Nukes take ~10 years to build,
another 20 years to decommission and dismantle before the site can be
re-used. Assuming 60 year life span, multiply your operating factor
by 0.666 [60/(60+10+20)], yielding numbers well below 60%.


Other then the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (which no operating nuc has
benefited from), what 'massive subsidies' you talking about? The fact that

Free'd from the true liability costs of an accident/incident is one
hell of a subsidy. And the hundred's of billions of dollars in R&D
subsidies (already spent).

All the costs of nuclear proliferation should be tacked onto the
nuclear energy industry. DHS/DOD expenditures to protecting our
boarders from Rouge nukes getting in. Which is going to make one hell
of a mess if one goes off next to an operating reactor. )

Statistics predicts that any reoccurring activity with a probability
greater than zero IS EVENTUALLY GOING TO OCCUR.

Snippy the rest of your nonscientific ramblings. --- Example .

"You were wrong to use just a single year's generation".. I posted
the actual production numbers and calculations for TWO ADJCENT YEARS
(2004 -- 85.0%, 2005 -- 84.5%). The two year average output was under
84.8% of the name plate ratings.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rear fold down ramp for trailer. (Is solid ok?)
    ... Diamond plate is good. ... Expanded metal on the ramps - if anything. ... but don't forget to size the axle& tires according to the *maximum* possible load. ... you'll have to load it according to its capacity. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Battery Killer - Thats Me
    ... The rest of the "dead" battery may be rechargeable, ... but it's my understanding that once a plate is ... contribute to the battery's capacity again. ... You seem to be saying exposed plate area can be recovered by ...
    (rec.boats.electronics)
  • Re: Uranium availability
    ... Existing Capacity by Energy Source, ... GENERATOR NAME PLATE ... My post&link matches actual production to less than 0.0001%.. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • 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. ... *NO* plant in the country (nuc, hydro, wind, coal, gas-turbine, etc...) calculates net capacity factor the way you suggest. ... 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. ...
    (sci.energy)