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
Subscribe to
Thanks in advance..
George
"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.
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.
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.
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.