RE:RE:nuclear energy articlesI have reaad many many articles on wind and solar power and how they will "change the world". The bit of information that is always missing (because newswriters have no idea of it's significance) is capacity factor. The definition of capacity factor for any power plant whether ii is driven by sunshine, wind, nuclear energy, coal oil, gas or water, is the number of megawatts it actually produced in a given time frame divided by the number of megawatts it COULD produce if it ran 100% of the time for that same time period. Pick up any article you like on wind and solar and you will NEVER see this number mentioned. You need to ask the question why? Always they will state the nameplate rating which is the amount it could produce if it ran for 100% of the time.
The answers is that capacity factor determines the economics of the plant. So what are the typical capacity factors for the various types of generation.
Solar (even at the most sunny sites about 25 to 30%
Wind (even at the most windy sites) about 20 to 25%
Coal about 90%
Oil about 90%
Gas about 95%
Nuclear about 95%
Water power about 70 to 80%
As you can see mother nature dictates how much wind power, water power and sun power can be produced. Human beings control how much coal, oil gas or nuclear is produced.
So if solar and wind are in the lower quartile of capacity factors you need much more of it to produce the same amount of power.. Here is a simplified example of how it works in the real world of engineers.
Say I have a 1000MW nuclear power plant that I run at 100% for the entire day. That is typical for most plants. Now let us say I have the same 1000MW powered by the Sun (that is a colossal solar plant by the way). In a 24 hour time period the nuclear plant will have produced a guaranteed 24000 Megwatt hours of electricity. In the same time frame the solar plant can only produce 1000 x 24 x 30% or 7200 MW-hours of electricity.
That means that in order to produce the same amount of electricity you require 3.33 solar plants - not one. Therefore the capital cost is at leat three times the cost of a 1000MW plant. The next problem is that the sun does not shine at night...an inconvenient truth but it is a fact nevertheless. So not only do you need 3.33 solar plants for every one nuclear plant you ALSO need to build a 1000MW storage facility so that you can power your 1000MW of load overnight
The biggest battery every built (only has an 8 year lifespan) is 150MW TESLA installation in South Austrtalia. Mr. Musk knows they will need a new one in 8 years time...the guy is not stupid...politicians are.
So let us say that the sun does not shine for 50% of the time (clouds and other weather conditions decrease this number alot in most northern nations so 50% is highly optimistic. That means that you need 3.33 plants to operate your load of 1000MW during the day but you need another 3.33 plants to charge the battery during the day so you have your 1000MW overnight.. Therefore you need nearly 7 x 1000MW solar plants to keep the same 1000MW load running 24 hours a day.
So next time someone says that solar is going to replace nuclear...ask them how much land that will consume and ask them about capacity factor. Observe the blank looks.
The bottom line is that the mathematics of solar and wind do NOT add up.
If you want any further proof of this just take a look at Germany. They have spent billions and billions of euros on solar panels and wind plants. The result is that they have ALSO needed to build many large COAL fired plants to replace the nuclear capacity they have taken off line and their CO2 emissions are the worst of ANY country in Europe. So much for clean energy. Politically this is a win-win for Merkel (who is East German) since every single one of the coal plants is in her home jurisdiction and therefore collects her lots of votes. Energiewiende is about politics not clean energy. Never mix the two and do not be fooled.
As you can see it is not possiblle for solar to replace nuclear power or fossil fuelled power without covering large (very large) tracts of land with solar panels AND building huge storage facilities. The same logic applies to wind but only because they have the same teribble capacity factor.
I also noted earlier that these capacity factors are for the very best wind and solar plants. Capacity factors of nuclear and fossil fuelled plants are tied only to the maintenance required which is why you can run them for almost an entire year without having any problems. They are designed to do that.
So how does this affect ones Uranium investment. Well the rest of the world truly believes that solar and wind can replace nuclear. People are not engineers or scientists generally so it is very very easy for the media to fool them and they do very successfully. But mathematics, science and engineering cannot be built on lies and inuendo. These disciplines have to be factual...there is no room for lies and bs. So opportunity occurs when the lies are found out and the facts have to rule which means that the majority who think nuclear power is finished are very very wrong. So when Uranium stocks begin their inevitable run up there will be the usual gasps of incredulity while the people who were so misinformed pile into the investement.
Those of us who do not believe the bs will be the winners.
Great investing all.
Malcolm