Rate:
Share
Views: 3328
Text Size:

Investing in the Nuclear Renaissance

The Inevitable Move to Nuclear Energy

By Keith Kohl
Tuesday, January 8th, 2008

At the risk of going off on a tangent today, I'd like to briefly address several of your concerns about oil prices. Whether or not you believe oil is going to head lower (as much as $10 a barrel) over the next few months, the fact is that even a drop to $90 a barrel (however unlikely) still means that prices are remarkably high. After all, twelve months ago we were told oil would fall under $40 a barrel.

Trust me, watching the daily swing of oil prices can drive you insane.

But making oil predictions isn't what gets me up in the morning. Anyone who knows about the widening gap in supply and demand can tell you prices will increase. I'm positive that even skeptics will admit that energy prices have been out of control for the last few years.

In the words of one of my readers, "I'm not interested what oil prices will be this week. Rather, I want to hear about what's in store for the future."

Curbing Our Oil Addiction

Like it or not, the world is going to change its oil consumption habits. The U.S. is already making plans to cut its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The catch, however, is that oil is a finite resource, so eventually we're going to turn somewhere else.

The total amount of oil that's left isn't the problem. Rather, it's getting to that oil, and the cost to extract that oil in the next few decades is going to reach a breaking point. It'll simply become too costly for producers.

The good news is that there has been remarkable advances in renewable energy sources, but the problem I have with sources like solar, wind or other renewables is scale.

Does that mean we should scrap all of our renewable projects?

Absolutely not, I'm only worried about whether they can satisfy our energy demands on such a massive scale.

So where are we going to turn?

The Nuclear Renaissance

Nuclear energy currently supplies about 16% of the world's electricity. Countries like France and Sweden have already proven that nuclear power is affordable. After all, nuclear energy provides over 70% of their electricity.

We're talking about a lot energy, too. During the fission process, one pound of uranium (U-235) releases the same amount of energy than 6,000 barrels of oil!

Commercial nuclear power plants have been around for over fifty years, so the technology isn't new. There are 439 nuclear reactors operating around the world, with another 33 currently being built. Furthermore, another 94 reactors are on order or planned and an additional 222 reactors have been proposed.

Still don't believe that nuclear energy is undergoing a revival?

In England, nuclear plants might be built on as many as sixty sites. The move would force some of the coal or gas-fired plants to close, and the government has made it clear that some of these new plants will be built by 2020. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few operating before 2015.

There is, however, a catch...

A number of issues must be dealt with in order for nuclear energy to continue growing. The largest obstacle comes with the waste. According to the World Nuclear Association, "Nuclear power is the only energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product."

Investing in Nuclear Energy

For investors, there's a few options available.

The easiest way is through uranium. Although uranium prices have cooled off since peaking around $140 per pound this summer, production is still coming up short. Remember that uranium consists of such a small part of a power plant's budget, the current price of $90 a pound is cheap.

Uranium companies aren't the only way to invest in nuclear. Utility firms like Exelon Corp. (NYSE: EXC) has performed well over the last two years. Since the beginning of 2006, the Redhall Group (LON: RHL) has earned over 700% for investors.

Not a bad chunk of change.

The Next Step

Don't think for a minute that the nuclear show will stop with uranium. On Thursday, I'm going to show you another source of energy that could fuel the world's energy demands for thousands of years.

Until next time,

keith kohl

Keith Kohl

www.energyandcapital.com






Rate this article:
 
     Current Rating:  
Article RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle Rating (14 votes)

Comment on this Article


Comments:

Comment by David W. Pate PhD, MSc on 2008-01-09
For those without an adequate background on nuclear energy, such a choice might seem attractive. However, a good look at the entire cradle-to-grave nuclear cycle reveals that it is fraught with enormous energetic, security and health/environmental costs. That is why some countries in Europe have are refusing or phasing-out the technology. Others around the world won't even consider that path. In short, the choice is short-term gratification vs. long-term devastation. I can appreciate why someone in your position finds the former prospect of more importance, but please allow me to opt out of your e-mails in the future.
Comment by Harvey Hirsch on 2008-01-09
You folks might want to check out Market Vectors - Nuclear Energy ETF. It trades on the American Stock Exchange under the symbol NLR. As of November 30, NLR had 35 constituents. NLR offers a "pure play" in nuclear energy as each constituents generally derives at least 50% of its revenue from nuclear.
Comment by Bob Cooke on 2008-01-09
Your article is a good ,brief overview of the petroleum situation with a brief mention of renewable energy.With this in mind, I suggest a recent(Jan. 8/08) press release from Nova Scotia, Canada, announcing the award of an onshore site and offshore demonstration sites for a tidal energy demonstration project. One of the companies successful in participating is UEKUS, based in Annapolis, Maryland, your backyard,almost.
Your views on this approach to energy generation would be appreciated.

Bob Cooke
Comment by Norm Erickson on 2008-01-09
Maybe, Keith, but maybe as close to fiction as the hype about oil from oil shale in the Near West. A presentation by a nuclear physicist at the ASPO-USA conference in Houston recently indicated that fuel shortages may limit growth by 2013. At that time the half of the fuel now being used will end (from decommisioned nukes in the Former Soviet Union). There is a lot of fissionable material in the earth, but not many places where it is sufficiently concentrated to be extracted. Maybe thorium?
Can we afford it? It may be wiser to spend the capital on cheaper emissions reduction and energy efficiency and conservation technologies.
Comment by keith renick on 2008-01-10
WoW! Great short article! I get very excited when you talk about Nuclear Energy and Uraium. I bought shares of (cjj) seven years ago. Keep in mind that 25% of the cost of mining is energy. As the cost of oil goes up, the cost of digging up stuff out of the ground will also go up. I get very excited talking about this stuff. Like late at night when my wife slides to my side of the bed and whispers something sexy in my ear like "I promise I won't go shopping this weekend." Nuclear, solar and tar sands. Logic doesn't count. We will do it. It will happen. Humanity hasn't had a collective panic attack yet.....once we do....all debate will stop and we will throw money at everything. Mountains of money. One young man here in Peachtree City was arguing with me the other day. According to him, we will just car pool and ride trains and get electric cars and then he shared all of his political views with me. I told him "your political views are such because you have air conditioning and refrigeration." Of course he thought this statement was dumb. Trust me! Once you don't have air conditioning and refrigeration you world view will change in radical new directions. Look at page 146 Beyone Oil by Deffeyes...."if you got 100 percent of your electricity from nuclear power for your entire lifetime, how big would your share of the radioactive waste be? About the size of a doorknob." Like it or love it, nuclear is coming big time. Aramco Renick, Peachtree City, Ga.
Comment by Roger Cole on 2008-01-22
uranium is a finite resource. There is thought to be about 30 years worth left at current usage. If countries build more nuclear power stations then the rate of uranium depletion will inevitably shorten. Why invest in nuclear when there is no guarantee
that there will be the fuel to run them?
The world is still in a state of denial about the need to move now away from our dependence on fossil fuels urgently and start to transition our economies and lifestyles towards sustainability.
Roger Cole