On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:06:45 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My $25000/kg of uranium is the cost/kg at which uranium generated
electricity increases in cost by *1* cent/kwh.

wrong.. more like 77.5 cents per kWh.. not including enrichment,
construction, operational, and decommissioning costs..

math..

Initial fuel load 1GWe .. 100 metric tons of enriched UO2
before enrichment.. ~660 metric tons of U3O8(yellow cake)..
two refuelings, replacing 1/3 of fuel rods every 1.5 years
220 tonns * 2....

660MT + 220MT + 220MT == 1100 MT
1.5 years * 3 == 4.5 years @ 90% duty cycle..

1100 * 1000MT/kg * 25,000$/kg == 2.75e+10 dollars.. (27.5 Billion
dollars)

2.75e+10 / (4.5 years * 365.25 * 24 * .9 * 1,000,000(kWh/hr)) == 0.775
dollars per kWh or 77.5 cents per kWh in U3O8 costs..

On Mar 29, 4:59 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:



On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:06:45 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My $25000/kg of uranium is the cost/kg at which uranium generated
electricity increases in cost by *1* cent/kwh.

wrong.. more like 77.5 cents per kWh.. not including enrichment,
construction, operational, and decommissioning costs..

math..

Initial fuel load 1GWe .. 100 metric tons of enriched UO2
before enrichment.. ~660 metric tons of U3O8(yellow cake)..
two refuelings, replacing 1/3 of fuel rods every 1.5 years
220 tonns * 2....

660MT + 220MT + 220MT == 1100 MT
1.5 years * 3 == 4.5 years @ 90% duty cycle..

1100 * 1000MT/kg * 25,000$/kg == 2.75e+10 dollars.. (27.5 Billion
dollars)

2.75e+10 / (4.5 years * 365.25 * 24 * .9 * 1,000,000(kWh/hr)) == 0.775
dollars per kWh or 77.5 cents per kWh in U3O8 costs..

except that with refuelling, 96% of the fuel that you remove from the
reactor goes back into the reactor. your numbers are correct for the
once through fuel cycle such as is practiced stupidly in the us, in
france, my number is correct.

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:44:24 -0700 (PDT), bill



ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:59 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:06:45 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My $25000/kg of uranium is the cost/kg at which uranium generated
electricity increases in cost by *1* cent/kwh.

wrong.. more like 77.5 cents per kWh.. not including enrichment,
construction, operational, and decommissioning costs..

math..

Initial fuel load 1GWe .. 100 metric tons of enriched UO2
before enrichment.. ~660 metric tons of U3O8(yellow cake)..
two refuelings, replacing 1/3 of fuel rods every 1.5 years
220 tonns * 2....

660MT + 220MT + 220MT == 1100 MT
1.5 years * 3 == 4.5 years @ 90% duty cycle..

1100 * 1000MT/kg * 25,000$/kg == 2.75e+10 dollars.. (27.5 Billion
dollars)

2.75e+10 / (4.5 years * 365.25 * 24 * .9 * 1,000,000(kWh/hr)) == 0.775
dollars per kWh or 77.5 cents per kWh in U3O8 costs..

except that with refuelling, 96% of the fuel that you remove from the
reactor goes back into the reactor. your numbers are correct for the
once through fuel cycle such as is practiced stupidly in the us, in
france, my number is correct.

No your numbers are NOT correct or even close..

A spent fuel's rod remaining uranium content is nearly all U-238..
inert.. 80 to 90%of the U-235 content has undergone fission..

New reactor fuel.. 3.5 to 4.5 % U-235 content..
Spent fuel.. less than 1% U-235 content.. approx 0,7% new Pu
content..

Mined U isotopic breakdown.. 0.7% U-235, 99.3% U-238 content..

P.S.. The world has plenty of spare U-238.(Depleted Uranium)..
We used it to tip anti-tank weapons.

It's the U-235 isotope that's a rare commodity..http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm

On Mar 29, 1:59 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:



On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:06:45 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My $25000/kg of uranium is the cost/kg at which uranium generated
electricity increases in cost by *1* cent/kwh.

wrong.. more like 77.5 cents per kWh.. not including enrichment,
construction, operational, and decommissioning costs..

math..

Initial fuel load 1GWe .. 100 metric tons of enriched UO2
before enrichment.. ~660 metric tons of U3O8(yellow cake)..
two refuelings, replacing 1/3 of fuel rods every 1.5 years
220 tonns * 2....

660MT + 220MT + 220MT == 1100 MT
1.5 years * 3 == 4.5 years @ 90% duty cycle..

1100 * 1000MT/kg * 25,000$/kg == 2.75e+10 dollars.. (27.5 Billion
dollars)

2.75e+10 / (4.5 years * 365.25 * 24 * .9 * 1,000,000(kWh/hr)) == 0.775
dollars per kWh or 77.5 cents per kWh in U3O8 costs..

Thorium per 1 GW Year: 6 lbs a day. Amount of waste per 1 GW year: 1
ton.

energyfromthorium.com/portal

David

On Mar 29, 4:59 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:06:45 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My $25000/kg of uranium is the cost/kg at which uranium generated
electricity increases in cost by *1* cent/kwh.

wrong.. more like 77.5 cents per kWh.. not including enrichment,
construction, operational, and decommissioning costs..

math..

Initial fuel load 1GWe .. 100 metric tons of enriched UO2
before enrichment.. ~660 metric tons of U3O8(yellow cake)..
two refuelings, replacing 1/3 of fuel rods every 1.5 years
220 tonns * 2....

660MT + 220MT + 220MT == 1100 MT
1.5 years * 3 == 4.5 years @ 90% duty cycle..

1100 * 1000MT/kg * 25,000$/kg == 2.75e+10 dollars.. (27.5 Billion
dollars)

2.75e+10 / (4.5 years * 365.25 * 24 * .9 * 1,000,000(kWh/hr)) == 0.775
dollars per kWh or 77.5 cents per kWh in U3O8 costs..

except that with refuelling, 96% of the fuel that you remove from the
reactor goes back into the reactor. your numbers are correct for the
once through fuel cycle such as is practiced stupidly in the us, in
france, my number is correct.

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:44:24 -0700 (PDT), bill



ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:59 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:06:45 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My $25000/kg of uranium is the cost/kg at which uranium generated
electricity increases in cost by *1* cent/kwh.

wrong.. more like 77.5 cents per kWh.. not including enrichment,
construction, operational, and decommissioning costs..

math..

Initial fuel load 1GWe .. 100 metric tons of enriched UO2
before enrichment.. ~660 metric tons of U3O8(yellow cake)..
two refuelings, replacing 1/3 of fuel rods every 1.5 years
220 tonns * 2....

660MT + 220MT + 220MT == 1100 MT
1.5 years * 3 == 4.5 years @ 90% duty cycle..

1100 * 1000MT/kg * 25,000$/kg == 2.75e+10 dollars.. (27.5 Billion
dollars)

2.75e+10 / (4.5 years * 365.25 * 24 * .9 * 1,000,000(kWh/hr)) == 0.775
dollars per kWh or 77.5 cents per kWh in U3O8 costs..

except that with refuelling, 96% of the fuel that you remove from the
reactor goes back into the reactor. your numbers are correct for the
once through fuel cycle such as is practiced stupidly in the us, in
france, my number is correct.

No your numbers are NOT correct or even close..

A spent fuel's rod remaining uranium content is nearly all U-238..
inert.. 80 to 90%of the U-235 content has undergone fission..

New reactor fuel.. 3.5 to 4.5 % U-235 content..
Spent fuel.. less than 1% U-235 content.. approx 0,7% new Pu
content..

Mined U isotopic breakdown.. 0.7% U-235, 99.3% U-238 content..

P.S.. The world has plenty of spare U-238.(Depleted Uranium)..
We used it to tip anti-tank weapons.

It's the U-235 isotope that's a rare commodity..http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm

On Mar 28, 6:39 pm, "terrylhewettsr" <terrylhewet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:3221f9e0-82f0-4c50-8493-fdc4cd5bd86c@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...



On Mar 25, 9:34 pm, "terrylhewettsr" <terrylhewet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:40d5b5cc-122f-4112-83fd-b9f2942d5a24@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 25, 11:33 am, "terrylhewettsr" <terrylhewet...@yahoo.com
wrote:
What are you endorsing here?
Magnetic power inc is saying nothing, showing nothing, and more
than
likely
has nothing. if they are not willing to lay the technology on the
table
for
man to peer review it than they have nothing!

I don't see the technology or any part of it. Just a bunch of hocus
pocus
genie this and that. I'm not buying into something i cannot see or
understand the basic principles involved.

I am an inventor of such technology as Magnetic power inc is
claiming.
Ive
got all the details worked out and there is nothing on the planet
like
it.
And yes i have recieve more than my share of ridicule. however I
still
put
the information out there for peer review. I'm not fearfull of the
govt
or
the so called NWO. it's this simple I am the first to invent and
prototype
the technology. I know this because I have scoured the planet to
find
one
componant that simply doesn't exist. It's this simple "toroid
armature"
go
ahead find me a manufacturer that makes it.

Green energy is here! Self renewing systems can be constructed. I
have
invented three such mechanisms that are self reliant and require no
outside
fuel or interraction.

All three are simple concepts. I will be posting them yet again in
the
appropreate newsgroups. However none of them use ZPE, dark energy,
the
vacuum, void, aether, space goo, space foam or any other fantasy
form
of
explaining energy we don't understand as of yet.

All three concepts are using tried and true principles well defined
within
physics. All are well within the relms of conservation of energy
and
are
NOT
witheld by thermodynamics. These are closed systems and there is no
entropy
within the systems.

How many venture start up $ billions $ are you looking for?
. -BradGuth

I've built 6 prototypes of the Superconducting rotory toroidal
transformer
my main technology and have only invested at most $100. but i'm not
asking
for venture capitol. I would much rather you peer review the
technology.
Then if you see merit in it and feel you would like to endorse it
monitary
or otherwise it is up to you.

A rotary toroidal transformer can be very volumetric efficient,
whereas any time you can compress magnetics by half its volume is
going to offer a 16 fold increase in the energy hauling or transfer
capacity. This is a very good improvement that's well worth doing if
there's no significant friction or subsequent wear taking place. Even
a 25% volumetric reduction is worth a 4:1 energy density improvement.
. -BradGuth

Invention is the marriage of mechanics and the sciences With
innovations in both fields.

I am an inventor of highly innovative technology. The technology is
basic at best.
however the byproducts are many. Everything is relative through spin.
Fluid dynamics
implicates that every atom of it is spinning. Some extremely slow such
as a solid. the
specific gravity and kinetic energy are fully conserved. It's seemingly
at rest.

Inventing is mostly problem solving. How great your invention? is
directly related to how
great the problem you set out to solve. Induction one of Faraday's
brain child's. The act
of putting a changing magnetic flux field through an induction coil.
The problem is how
to do that cyclic. The answer is a multipole toroid armature. Super
conductance via a
magnetic bearing in an ideal configuration. Caging the toroid armatures
permanent field
arrangement. Path of least resistance predicts the toroid armature will
spin. This is a
frictionless environment with the potential for high efficiency.

The whole goal here was to drive a changing magnetic flux field through
an induction coil
cyclic. It turned out driving multiple changing magnetic flux fields
through several
induction coils cyclic. In essence it is free energy. However the
byproducts of spinning
a mass particularly a ring at hyper extreme rates has the potential to
include
antigravity as a byproduct. Unity is defined as the radius of a
natural sine. Given the
previous the form toroid is unity by form alone. to spin the form
toroid is simply over
unity. The transformations of energy in the SRTT are unified
transforming electric to
kinetic and back to electric cyclic for infinity.

This mechanism is fully multifarious via design variations.

http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringdrawingincomplete.jpg

There are two kinds of coils 4 each. drive coils and induction coils.
No pulsing
necessary it is centipedal drive system the drive coils magnetically
cage the permanent
fields of the toroid armature. Electromotive forces as defined by
faraday motivates the
toroid armature seeking the path of least resistance in an eccentric
manner orbital about
the axis. Induction coils inducing elec energy via driving multiple
magnetic flux fields
through 4 induction coils at potentially extreme rates of change. In
comparison it would
be like shaking a faraday flashlight 8,000,000 times a minute.

http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringofmagnetswithspacers.jpg

The Armature once in motion is pure kinetic energy with all the
byproducts associated
with spinning mass.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!pt6r002.jpgNote the
physical magnets placements in comparison to the actual
fieldshttp://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!centipedalfieldring.jpgOK
the spacing of the
attracting N and S poles has created a extra flux field. It is there in
a physical sense
yet it is pseudo in the sense that it's strong and weak forces can be
easily
manipulated.http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/CentipedalDrive.jpg
the
following image is how
the fields may look as the armature is caged by the drive
coils.http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/fluxlines4.jpgplease
forgive
the crude
drawings as i don't have a source for computer modeled works. The
prototype is #6 and
will never be completed as a testable model. This mechanism is designed
as a one piece
toroid armature consisting of a ceramic or comparable material that can
be host to a
permanent field that is non conductive.

These drawings are linear this one is the coils and spacing
example,http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!pt6spoolcoilplacementsm.jpg
this one is a
double slice showing the ring chamber and the molded gear section for
twisting the
chamber/spool for winding coils around the
armature,http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!pt6spooldblslicesm.jpg

Anyways if you could direct this transmittal document to those that may
have an interest
in it for peer review or potential research for any specific
implementation. this is
unique highly innovative technology. You and your associates are
presented with a unique
opportunity.

terry

Thanks much, as I'll give this research of your's a good read, and
report back as soon as I have a better understanding and questions.
. - Brad Guth

On Mar 29, 3:10 pm, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:44:24 -0700 (PDT), bill



ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:59 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:06:45 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My $25000/kg of uranium is the cost/kg at which uranium generated
electricity increases in cost by *1* cent/kwh.

wrong.. more like 77.5 cents per kWh.. not including enrichment,
construction, operational, and decommissioning costs..

math..

Initial fuel load 1GWe .. 100 metric tons of enriched UO2
before enrichment.. ~660 metric tons of U3O8(yellow cake)..
two refuelings, replacing 1/3 of fuel rods every 1.5 years
220 tonns * 2....

660MT + 220MT + 220MT == 1100 MT
1.5 years * 3 == 4.5 years @ 90% duty cycle..

1100 * 1000MT/kg * 25,000$/kg == 2.75e+10 dollars.. (27.5 Billion
dollars)

2.75e+10 / (4.5 years * 365.25 * 24 * .9 * 1,000,000(kWh/hr)) == 0.775
dollars per kWh or 77.5 cents per kWh in U3O8 costs..

except that with refuelling, 96% of the fuel that you remove from the
reactor goes back into the reactor. your numbers are correct for the
once through fuel cycle such as is practiced stupidly in the us, in
france, my number is correct.

No your numbers are NOT correct or even close..

A spent fuel's rod remaining uranium content is nearly all U-238..
inert.. 80 to 90%of the U-235 content has undergone fission..

New reactor fuel.. 3.5 to 4.5 % U-235 content..
Spent fuel.. less than 1% U-235 content.. approx 0,7% new Pu
content..

Mined U isotopic breakdown.. 0.7% U-235, 99.3% U-238 content..

P.S.. The world has plenty of spare U-238.(Depleted Uranium)..
We used it to tip anti-tank weapons.

It's the U-235 isotope that's a rare
commodity..http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm

Well, you're almost right. consider a candu. take natural
uranium, drop it in, reprocess, drop it in, reprocess, drop it in. I
missed in that the french use LWRs so it doesn't apply to their fuel
cycle, however, at $1000/kg for yellowcake, stretching the yellowcake
gets important and the candu gets more useful. Simply put, 3.5 million
kwh/kg is an easily attainable target for energy density of natural
uranium.

"bill" <ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:6bf3d041-d7c0-45e6-8343-b029f4242eac@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...



On Mar 29, 3:10 pm, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:44:24 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:59 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:06:45 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My $25000/kg of uranium is the cost/kg at which uranium generated
electricity increases in cost by *1* cent/kwh.

wrong.. more like 77.5 cents per kWh.. not including enrichment,
construction, operational, and decommissioning costs..

math..

Initial fuel load 1GWe .. 100 metric tons of enriched UO2
before enrichment.. ~660 metric tons of U3O8(yellow cake)..
two refuelings, replacing 1/3 of fuel rods every 1.5 years
220 tonns * 2....

660MT + 220MT + 220MT == 1100 MT
1.5 years * 3 == 4.5 years @ 90% duty cycle..

1100 * 1000MT/kg * 25,000$/kg == 2.75e+10 dollars.. (27.5 Billion
dollars)

2.75e+10 / (4.5 years * 365.25 * 24 * .9 * 1,000,000(kWh/hr)) == 0.775
dollars per kWh or 77.5 cents per kWh in U3O8 costs..

except that with refuelling, 96% of the fuel that you remove from the
reactor goes back into the reactor. your numbers are correct for the
once through fuel cycle such as is practiced stupidly in the us, in
france, my number is correct.

No your numbers are NOT correct or even close..

A spent fuel's rod remaining uranium content is nearly all U-238..
inert.. 80 to 90%of the U-235 content has undergone fission..

New reactor fuel.. 3.5 to 4.5 % U-235 content..
Spent fuel.. less than 1% U-235 content.. approx 0,7% new Pu
content..

Mined U isotopic breakdown.. 0.7% U-235, 99.3% U-238 content..

P.S.. The world has plenty of spare U-238.(Depleted Uranium)..
We used it to tip anti-tank weapons.

It's the U-235 isotope that's a rare
commodity..http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm

Well, you're almost right. consider a candu. take natural
uranium, drop it in, reprocess, drop it in, reprocess, drop it in. I
missed in that the french use LWRs so it doesn't apply to their fuel
cycle, however, at $1000/kg for yellowcake, stretching the yellowcake
gets important and the candu gets more useful. Simply put, 3.5 million
kwh/kg is an easily attainable target for energy density of natural
uranium.

Not to mention other fissile isotopes are created in fuel while operating.
That's one of the reasons why people get all excited about proliferation.
Even in commercial LWR technology of today, a substantial fraction of the
energy extracted comes from Pu that is breed in place. Reprocessing such
fuel and removing the poisons can yield almost as much fissile material as
when it was first installed.

But then, 'Keating' is not interested in truth, just wants to rant
anti-nuclear lies

daestrom

On Mar 31, 7:02 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com
wrote:
"bill" <ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:6bf3d041-d7c0-45e6-8343-b029f4242eac@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...



On Mar 29, 3:10 pm, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:44:24 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:59 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:06:45 -0700 (PDT), bill

ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My $25000/kg of uranium is the cost/kg at which uranium generated
electricity increases in cost by *1* cent/kwh.

wrong.. more like 77.5 cents per kWh.. not including enrichment,
construction, operational, and decommissioning costs..

math..

Initial fuel load 1GWe .. 100 metric tons of enriched UO2
before enrichment.. ~660 metric tons of U3O8(yellow cake)..
two refuelings, replacing 1/3 of fuel rods every 1.5 years
220 tonns * 2....

660MT + 220MT + 220MT == 1100 MT
1.5 years * 3 == 4.5 years @ 90% duty cycle..

1100 * 1000MT/kg * 25,000$/kg == 2.75e+10 dollars.. (27.5 Billion
dollars)

2.75e+10 / (4.5 years * 365.25 * 24 * .9 * 1,000,000(kWh/hr)) ==
0.775
dollars per kWh or 77.5 cents per kWh in U3O8 costs..

except that with refuelling, 96% of the fuel that you remove from the
reactor goes back into the reactor. your numbers are correct for the
once through fuel cycle such as is practiced stupidly in the us, in
france, my number is correct.

No your numbers are NOT correct or even close..

A spent fuel's rod remaining uranium content is nearly all U-238..
inert.. 80 to 90%of the U-235 content has undergone fission..

New reactor fuel.. 3.5 to 4.5 % U-235 content..
Spent fuel.. less than 1% U-235 content.. approx 0,7% new Pu
content..

Mined U isotopic breakdown.. 0.7% U-235, 99.3% U-238 content..

P.S.. The world has plenty of spare U-238.(Depleted Uranium)..
We used it to tip anti-tank weapons.

It's the U-235 isotope that's a rare
commodity..http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm

Well, you're almost right. consider a candu. take natural
uranium, drop it in, reprocess, drop it in, reprocess, drop it in. I
missed in that the french use LWRs so it doesn't apply to their fuel
cycle, however, at $1000/kg for yellowcake, stretching the yellowcake
gets important and the candu gets more useful. Simply put, 3.5 million
kwh/kg is an easily attainable target for energy density of natural
uranium.

Not to mention other fissile isotopes are created in fuel while
operating.
That's one of the reasons why people get all excited about proliferation.
Even in commercial LWR technology of today, a substantial fraction of the
energy extracted comes from Pu that is breed in place. Reprocessing such
fuel and removing the poisons can yield almost as much fissile material
as
when it was first installed.

But then, 'Keating' is not interested in truth, just wants to rant
anti-nuclear lies

daestrom

I thought that the bulk of the PU produced was the 239 reactor grade,
rather than the 240 weapons grade, and that the process of separating
the 239 from the 240 was almost as complicated as uranium enrichment.
Is that wrong?