Sometimes a conversation or issue can spark an old memory. That's exactly what happened yesterday when I was talking with one of my readers about the role that nuclear energy will play in the future.

"After all," I pointed out to her, "we can only ride fossil fuels for so long. Even if we make it to 2030 without any catastrophic problems in production (let's just assume for now those rosy predictions of world oil demand falling are true), oil's time is going to come to an end. And think about this: by the time we reach that point, our demand may be too much for most renewable sources to make up."

To be honest, her response surprised me...

"So let me ask you, when was the last time you went through an atomic bomb drill?" she said casually.

You see, the second I started talking about nuclear power, her thoughts immediately went back to her experiences in elementary school.

"Kids today might have fun missing a test because they have to shuffle out of the school during a fire drill," she continued, "but it was a lot more frightening back then, at least it was for me. Picture your class huddling underneath tables in the school's cafeteria. Suddenly, your teacher starts yelling at you because you're facing a window. Sometimes it was pretty terrifying."

Perhaps some of my readers have a better idea of what she went through, yet I couldn't help wondering whether or not huddling inside a cafeteria would have been enough to save them in the event of a real atomic blast.

The stories she told me over the next hour proved to me how much of a stigma nuclear energy still has for certain people. To some, the idea of nuclear power conjures mushroom cloud images and disasters like Chernobyl.

The fact remains, however, that nuclear energy (although it does have several obstacles to overcome) has been getting a lot of attention over the last few years, especially since energy prices have taken off.

And whether we like it or not, nuclear energy is on the horizon....

Nuclear Energy Revival: 104 and Counting

There are approximately 104 nuclear reactors operating in the U.S., accounting for roughly 20% of the total electricity we generate.

If you really want to see where this industry is headed, just look at what we have planned for the future. Right now, there are 34 nuclear reactors being built around the world, with 93 on order or being planned and another 222 reactors that have been proposed.

Yet we aren't the only country interested in boosting our nuclear power...

Recently, Britain also decided that nuclear energy may be the way to go. The government just gave energy companies the green light to develop and build new nuclear power plants. The first new power plant could be ready within the next ten years.

Last July, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Russia will double their nuclear energy by adding another 26 power plants. Of course, this is on top of another sixty the country expects to export over the next twenty years.

It's practically impossible to talk about the world's growing energy demand without mentioning India and China. Each is taking a different path with nuclear energy.

For those of us looking to invest in the burgeoning nuclear industry, however, there are a few worthy options available...

Investing in Nuclear Energy

Perhaps one of the easiest ways to invest in the nuclear industry is with Market Vectors Global Nuclear Energy ETF (AMEX: NLR). This fund puts at least 80% of its total assets into companies that get at least 50% of their revenues from the nuclear industry. This investment is a great way to play the field.

Naturally, another opportunity for investors is in uranium. Ever since Cameco's flood at Cigar Lake, the supply side has become tighter. Cameco isn't expecting to start up production at the mine for at least another two years-assuming everything goes as planned.

Uranium prices have since cooled from the summer's high of $136 a pound. Don't forget when uranium cost a under $10 a pound back in 2000. I'd say that's quite a jump.

So is uranium going to keep falling?

I wouldn't say that just yet...

Remember, mines can only supply about 60% of the world's demand. The rest of the supply is mostly taken from old Russian nuclear warheads. Russia, however, is planning to double its nuclear industry, so how long will it be until they decide to stop giving away that uranium? I guess we'll soon find out... since the 'Megatons to Megawatts" program is set to expire in 2013.

I'd say uranium prices could break July's peak of $136 a pound before 2010... and once that program expires, the sky's the limit. Now that people are starting to accept $100 oil, how far away are we from $500 uranium?

Until next time,

Keith Kohl

www.energyandcapital.com

"Energy stocks... The only way a human is going to make any money."

-- Matt Simmons, Peak Oil's first and most vocal proponent,
and founder of the country's last pure play energy investment banking firm.

Follow the money trail. Sign up for Energy and Capital now.

Enter Your E-mail Address Below:

By signing up, you'll also get our latest report, The Truth About Oil.

People dont seem to realize that the sun only gives us a trickle of energy and the rest of it has been scavenged. There will quickly come a time when the free market realizes that the average joe doesnt deserve to drive a car or heat his house or cook his food. biofuels causing starvation in the 3rd world is just the tip of the iceburg.

and please for the love of god people- research the alternatives you are proposing.

biofuels? better stop paying farmers to not grow anything because demand just spiked all of a sudden.

shale oil? complete misnomer, it isnt shattered rocks floating around in oil its sedimentary rocks that have sponged up a bit of kerosine, you need to heat them up to 900 degrees before you get anything out of it. completely rapes the environement too.

solar? go ahead, try to run your home on solar power, you will cover your whole roof, blow a couple thousand in the process and be greatly disappointed.

nuclear is the only real option. yes, it will take alot of really smart people alot of effort to keep them from blowing up and make sure the waste is properly disposed of. but it beats the current annual release of 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide by the us alone.

this aint gonna go away by doing nothing, pick your poison or learn how to live without energy.

This article tells us that despite a few problems (like radation leaks, possible melt downs and no satisfactory way to dispose of spent fuel) nulear energy is the wave of the future and we might as well grasp the opportunty and cash in through investments. Anyone advocating this has caved in to the big money, anti-environment block.
It sounds like Bush administration
initatves that give lip service to alternative energy sources but push it off into the future and dismiss it as only a small part of the solution.
The truth is that if alternative energy was really pushed, advocated and funded with federal startups it would out strip nuclear quickly and at less cost, not to mention its safe and renewable nature. Solar alone can supply all the electricity in the U.S. and the converson of waste to methane can do the same. We. can produce all the ethanol we need to power our vehicles if we really push the idea and along with biofuels we'd put some of the big oil companies out of business.
If you want to buy into more nuclear plants you are not a friend of the environment. Nuclear is subsidized by the government. Those dollars should go alternatve energy initiatives.

It is clear that policy makers who understand the imminent global energy crunch are looking for alternatives. Since memory is short lived nuclear energy has a new chance for revival (most regrettably that is not true for the thousands that got killed in Czernobyl or elsewhere due to radioactivity).

Because bulding and dismantling of a nuclear power plant requires an amount of energy that is about 30% of the total energy production of the plant during its life, the problem of east has not been solved and the risks that a technical failure poses is beyond imagination the benefit of nuclear energy becomes overshadowed.
It looks very attractive but it isn't.
Since mankind is foolish enough to pursue what should not be pursued it is (from a financial point of view) a good idea to invest in companies that are involved in nuclear energy.
Whether it is clever and/or ethical is another question.

This consideration I missed in the article.

What source did Mr. Kohl use in his under construction and planned nuclear plant figures? Please advise?

Thanks in advance..

George

you say:
"Right now, there are 34 nuclear reactors being built around the world."

Which countries? What kind of economies? Meanwhile, wind and solar electricity generation is outstripping nuclear electricity at phenominal growth rates, in the less centralised economies.

I would not go near nuclear electricity with a bargepole. No-one knows what to do with the waste. War or sabotage carries an immediate threat and a poisonous legacy. No-one knows what to do with the high level waste. Reactors are linked in both public and political consciousness with nuclear weapons proliferation. Don't go there, fellas, stick to good advice instead. Nuclear electricity is a big sour lemon.

What happened to the nuclear power plants they were building in Washington State that were shutdown before they were opened? As I recall Washington State defaulted on the bonds issued to finance the construction.Referred to as "WSPS or Whoops".

"Right now, there are 34 nuclear reactors being built in the U.S., with 93 on order or being planned and another 222 reactors that have been proposed." These numbers are absolute fantasy, with zero grounding in reality. No new reactors are "under construction" in the US at the present time, and no firm orders for new reactors have been placed, for the simple reason that no new reactors have received either the federal loan guarantees that make their financing feasible, or their combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COLs) from the NRC, without which construction cannot begin. Anyone investing on the strength of this misninformation will lose their shirt. A very few companies have ordered long lead forged parts from foreign vendors, but these orders are fully hedged, and will be sold to the Chinese or elsewhere in Asia if the US renaissance does not get off the ground, which seems likely. In any event, any nuclear revival will be slower and much more limited than suggested by this article.

People accept $100 oil? I don't accept it. I have no choice. We have the oil here to use but choose not to. Too many tree huggers worried about what could happen what about what is happening & when china drills off our coast they won't care about polluting our water look at what they have done to us in the past year. What about all the shale oil. Forget other countries no one has the guts to talk about it mainstream & let us give up our dependence on foeign oil. Give american workers jobs & cut the cost of oil along with still working towards finding alternatives which the ones we have take almost as much fuel to make. along with taking away our food supply at a reasonable price. Besides everyting I read says we do not have enough uranium to keep making nuclear plants & why are we when all people do is complain about nuclear waste being transpoted or clean up sites. There is a clean up site in Saint Louis MO which has been being cleaned up for at least 10 years.

I FEEL STRONGLY THAT ANY ARTICLE (INCLUDING THIS ONE) SINGING THE PRAISES AND/OR SUPPORTING PROCESSES NUCLEAR, ITS EXPANSION AS AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE SHOULD IN FAIRNESS AND FOR THE READERS GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF THE STAKES INVOLVED, FEEL COMPELLED TO ALSO SPELLOUT THE SERIOUS ISSUES SUROUNDING THE transport and storage OF THE WASTE PRODUCED.

Nuclear energy is THE most expensive and THE most dangerous energy source on the the planet. Uranium is a finite resource, long-term safe waste storage is not possible, and the energy return on energy investment is not sustainable. The money would be better spent investing in the production of alternative energy sources, more R&D, and sustainable transportation. Once liquid fuel is either unavailable and/or unaffordable, it will be the local economies that survive.

There does not seem yo be much attention being paid to the disposal of spent fuel rods, at least publically. I know they have been talking about burying the rods in the Laurentian shield or ubder a mountain in the western U.S.. What are the opportunities for public participation?

We have to wait at least another 5 years to start building new nuclear plants. That's when most of the nuclear engineers will start retiring and a shortage of people to build and operate the plants will become critical. Just Murphy's Law.