sci.energy.hydrogen

"daestrom" wrote
>
> "Roland Mösl" wrote in message
> news:8ce12$47acbe10$557f96cf$6641@...
>>>> It seems You have no clue how much energy is necessary
>>>> to extract uranium from 0,2% ore
>>>>
>>> It seems you have no mind to lose. All these anti-nuke delusions
>>> have been debunked.
>>
>> Why do You think does USA disarm the atomic bombs now faster
>>
>> They need the uranium.
>>
>> Nuclear power is declining.
>>
>> Even with so much uranium from disarmed atomic bombs,
>> uranium price increased very much in the last years.
>>
>> After the last disarmed atomic bomb is converted to fuel
>> for nuclear power plants, the uranium price will explode
>> making power from atomic power plants to expensive.
>>
>
> Nonsense.
>
> BTW, here's a little estimate for you. An 850 MWe nuc plant might
> operate for two years between refueling at an overall capacity factor
> of 95% (if it's well run). That means about MW-hrs for each
> fuel cycle. A refueling of such a plant in 2006 spent about $60M for
> the fuel. Suppose you're right and the price of U triples so that
> same fuel costs $180M.
>
> That extra $120M for your 'exploded' fuel price will add about $8 /
> MW-hr. Considering the summertime peak prices rise up over $100 /
> MW-hr quite often, that kind of price increase is *not* going to cause
> plants to shutdown.

Would a tripling of the cost of Uranium add up to a tripling a cost of
enriched, fabricated and clad fuel for the reactor?

> Another thing, a lot of the Megatons-to-Megawatts uranium is not from
> US bombs, but USSR.

Karl Johanson