Views: 2191
Text:

The Nuclear Energy Industry

A "Nuclear Renaissance" Renaissance

By Nick Hodge
Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

I'm a realist.

So naturally, when someone proposes an idea that flies in the face of known facts, I oppose it. And that's why I've discounted nuclear energy as an investment catalyst over the past few years.

I know nuclear energy is viable. I'm aware of its low cost. And, yes, I know what's being done in France.

But looking good on paper doesn't translate into tangible realities. . . Just ask AIG.

Despite a proven, scalable technology. . . nuclear hasn't received traction because of its safety stigma. And it's hard to build billion-dollar nuclear projects with every Henry Homeowner in opposition.

Not to mention the NIMBY pressure put on politicians at all levels.

Indeed, it wasn't nuclear energy that I've been against; it was its prospect for growth potential in the face of public angst that I doubted.

But I see the needle slowly starting to shift.

Advertisement

The Biggest Investment of the 21st Century

It's called the smart grid... and it's about to revolutionize the way we use our electricity.

GE and Google have already committed billions to this technology...

But a handful of "super-ups" are poised to dominate this $297 billion/year industry...

Get their names and ticker symbols here.


A Nuclear Renaissance Renaissance

There's been talk of a nuclear revival since early this decade. Yet such an event has remained largely elusive in the West.

To be fair, there has been growth in Eastern Europe and Asia. But even with that growth, nuclear's share of the global energy mix has remained flat — stuck at 16% — since the mid 1980s.

(And this is precisely why renewables have been a better investment. Even though they have less overall market share, they've been gaining quickly.)

But now, with energy policy on the plates of policymakers in multiple countries, and with the blessing of the Obama administration, nuclear energy could actually be ready to stage its rebirth.

Leveraging the need for more energy — induced by population growth, development, desalination, and electric vehicles — and its emission-free nature, the nuclear industry has been able to attract an increasing share of a once-wary crowd.

And, as I said, that's been the real hurdle to nuclear expansion.

Avoiding a Meltdown

A discussion of nuclear revival can't commence without the mention of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. . . or the constant reports of improper maintenance and the lack of regulation that often under-reports it.

Nonetheless, the clean safety record over the past 20 years has done much to increase confidence. And, at least in the U.S., so has a promise for increased regulation.

What's more, this increase in public acceptance — and the political will that is following it — is leading to new research and investment opportunities in the nuclear industry.

In fact, increasing nuclear safety is one of the biggest investment drivers for the industry.

Advertisement

The FIRST big play of North America’s Oil Recovery

Breakthrough drilling technology has turned an abandoned Alberta oil field into the hottest energy territory in the western hemisphere...

And one $4-a-share company is positioned for the lion’s share of the spoils. Click here for the on-site proof that 1,239% gains await early investors.


Fueling Nuclear Profits

To overcome the safety hurdle, the nuclear lobby has been funding loads of research at the institutional level. Specifically, they've been looking for ways to improve the uranium fuel.

A few select companies are following this research closely. And they're helping to pioneer new nuclear fuel additives. Think STP for gasoline engines.

These new additives accomplish several things.

First, they improve thermal conductivity. That's fancy speak for absorbing the heat that is often the cause of nuclear failures. When the additives absorb heat, the core temperature of the uranium pellets is reduced, making for much safer operation.

And that's not the only benefit.

These new additives also increase an important metric in the industry called megawatt days per ton. This is like miles per gallon for nuclear energy.

By absorbing more heat, these new fuels allow more energy to be created, which greatly increases megawatt days per ton. So not only are these fuels safer, they allow plant operators to buy fuel less often — saving them money in the process.

Testing is still being completed, so I can't release the name of relevant companies just yet.

But you can bet they're rushing to get their product to market. In fact, one of the companies is already in talks with one of the largest nuclear fuel suppliers in the world.

China's planning on increasing its nuclear capacity 500% by 2020. And India wants to add between 20 and 30 new reactors by the same date.

Add to that the 25 new power plants that have been announced for the U.S — some with 2016 commission dates — and you're literally looking at 3 billion people that will soon be demanding safe nuclear power.

I'll be sure to pass along the details as they happen.

Call it like you see it,

Nick Hodge

Nick






Rate this article:
 
     Current Rating:  
Article RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle Rating (7 votes)

Comment on this Article


Comments:

Comment by Leslie Belden on 2009-11-10
If you REALLY believe nuclear plants are safe, I urge you to take a Geiger counter up to the area around Hanford, WA. Check out the Columbia River around the plant. I was there back in the 1970's, when Bechtel, who does a better job of anything they do than anybody else, was working on that plant. They were moving literal mountains of radioactive sand and dirt around, trying to bury them then. After noticing that an inordinate number of my friends were having babies with problems that could very likely have been radiation related, I found out I was pregnant and refused to stay there. I do not understand why people don't face the truth: there are plenty of us out here who KNOW those plants are dangerous, because we've seen and heard about what goes on during the building. They are not safe, their waste is not safe, and in some places it's already seeping into ground water, dirt, air, skin lungs, etc. You CAN'T get rid of it. Why are you messing with it? For profit? Well, I hope those who make money on it leave plenty to take care of their mutant great grandchildren.
Comment by Chris Fasoldt on 2009-11-10
And where is all this affordable nuclear fuel going to come from?
Comment by John Huynh on 2009-11-10
It will be good to tell us more about the industry and companies worthwhile looking at.

But I guess there will be more coming with a subscription fee to your services.
Comment by Danny Hannan on 2009-11-10
G'day Nick,
While aspects of nuclear power are probably good investments. The whole nuclear power supply issue is very questionable on several points.

Uranium fuel supply to our existing reactors is challenged.

Almost all of our stock of current reactors are passed or near the end of their design lives so need replacing

When the full cycle of mining and treatment of uranium for fuel, the high costs of construction and decommissioning, waste disposal and security issues of nuclear power are considered, the EROI of nuclear power is marginal at best.

When that full picture is looked at closely the reduced green house gas emissions of nuclear power over coal are also very questionable as well.

While there are a couple of generation 3 reactors being built they are well behind budget and schedual and are years maybe decades away from power production.

And we need to get to generation 4 reactors to be able break the uranium fuel supply problems, but that requires the production of plutonium as a fuel. Not a good or popular move.

At 60 years I do not expect to see any serious increase in the % of global energy supplied by nuclear power in my lifetime.

Nuclear power only supplies 5.5% of global energy and declining but 16% of global electricity.

Dan
Comment by phil wojo on 2009-11-10
I agree that conditions are changin. Problems remain.
The new prototype plant dome was
found to be too weak for modest tornadoes or hurricanes.
Whoosh is a big OOPS in safety!

However, the article seems devoid of anything specific about who is doing the additive/catalyst work.

anything specific?
Comment by Walter von Laubenfels on 2009-11-11
Heat absorbing additives will certainly improve the safety and viability of reactors. The major hurdle I see is the disposal of waste. Hanford is a good example of an unsolved problem. That said, I firmly believe that with the advent of the electric car and the decline of oil, we will have little choice but opt for nuclear power, since all other alternatives combined cannot come close to the prodigious output of a nuclear plant. I have invested heavily in uranium mines, because China and India will definitely go ahead with unprecedented reactor construction and Canada has extensive untapped uranium deposits.
Comment by Maurice McHenry on 2009-11-11
Only a minor point but the Uk have just submitted planning applications for 10 new nuclear power stations
Comment by Gary L. Gendron on 2009-11-11
Not a word about thorium in your piece. It's as safe as uranium and thiers no disposal problem.It's inventor is Lightbridge Corp. (LTBR) Also,the spent fuel cannot be used to make weapons grade material.Lightbridge has a working contract with the UAE and is working on simalair deals with India and Russia plus Areva, the nuclear power plant giant. So why not some mention of this process?
Comment by mike kusiak on 2009-11-24
Since the 1974 oil embargo nuclear power has been acknowledged in none less than Scientific American who dedicated an entire tome of related articles for use in academia entitled "Energy", which dedicated it's content to explaining that based on per capita energy use in the USA at the time and extending those calculations to projected global population, the only (ONLY) possible then known source of the quantity of energy which could supply those projected needs based on per capita BTU needs was and remains (apparently) nuclear power. Considering the environmental consequences then of coal use,( before serious use of scrubbers etc., it was the only real alternative for clean and efficient power generaton. The missing element to date, is not demand, rather lack of comittment, especially money for continued technologicalbreakthroughs which are still required,in rder to make the miracle happen. Combined with political, (i.e. commercial) interests with established profit motives to the contrary, and two significant global nuclear catrastrophies, both of which were known risks at the time(and conveniently disregarded by regulators), our ignorant and uncareing populace was hoodwinked by antinuclear interests into demobilizing the best shot at cheap, viable; and safe electricity production the USA ever had. As the impoverishment of this country continues, that mistake will be leveraged exponentially to our everlasting detriment.
Finally, the French, unconstrained by short-sighted profiteers/politicians, have since gained the initiative, and appear best positioned to take control of global civil nuclear leadership, despite attempts of U.S. leaders such as USEC,Inc. who are serving this country Through their megawatts for megatons nuclear warhead recycling by treaty with the Russians, and their American Centrifuge Program which promises to improve nuclear recycling technology even more while maintaining our technological and industrial expertise.
All this is to say that nuclear is our best energy answer though not necessarily the cheapest but; until Americans devote reasonable funding and comittment to civil nuclear energy development (as with all the other alternatives)we will squander yet another global leadrship opportunity.
It seems to me your article adds little to the critical discussion which must take place in America to advance nuclear technology for the benefit of all Americans. It is at best unenlightened opinion which does not add significant educationor data to the discussion. There is much capital to be made in the industry and it can be done legitimately and with classic American finesse. Americans need enlightened leadership not two-bit profiteering in this matter. Considering the TARP expenditures to bailout financials, a modest $2.5B loan guarantee to continue funding of the ACP seems peanuts to me to guarantee energy independence from oil robber baronswhile potentially employing hundreds of thousands of workers and cleaning up the emissions problem while assuring us of clean affordable electricity so we can get on with the business of rebuilding America's economy. Scientific American pointed out that with every major change in the source of power (BTU's) in the history of civilization, mankind has significantly advanced be wood for fire to cook with , waterfalls to generate electricity for lighting, using coal for steam engines, crude oil for gasoline internal combustion, or nuclear radiation for hydrolysis of saltwater for production of drinking water or for steam generation for submarine propulsion, to say nothing of use for powering the national electrical grid or use to cool superconductors: All of these are pointing to still undiscovered progress of humankind. Forget the little improved uranium pellets! Let's get on with the real work of figuring out how to detoxify nuclear waste, recycling radioactive chemicals, and making nuclear power plants failsafe. These are things which we can accomplish if we want.
Maybe you can help by encouraging Americans to invest in their energy futures intelligently. The profits will come of due course. Sincerely Mike Kusiak