Daniel Moser

Why I'm Long Uranium and Nuclear / Power Engineering

On the cost front, you might read the piece again...the upfront costs of nuclear are substantially higher, however the MARGINAL COST is remarkably lower. Which is to say once the nuclear plants are built, they are by far cheaper than everything but hydro (as far as I know).

Next, the vast majority of alternative forms of energy have extremely low scalability. I am not saying that wind, solar, etc are bad ideas in all cases. I am just suggesting that in the scheme of things, these technologies will not solve the problem without leading to a severe energy shortage in the U.S. and quite frankly the world.

In terms of generating capacity in the U.S., Wind Power makes up about 1%, Solar makes much less than 1%, Geothermal makes up well less than 1%, Hydroelectric makes up about 9%. So....lets just say for argument sake it is not exactly feasible to dam up every river accross the United States (of course I could be wrong, but nonetheless). If you quadrouple each of the other forms of renewable resources you are still under 10% of generating capacity. My point is that is that these forms of alternative energy are not a viable option to handle a major transition away from our reliance on "dirty" power without creating a major power shortfall.

Third point, on a marginal basis....natural gas is not cheaper than nuclear power. That point is 100% inaccurate. Hence, nuclear power is used as a "base load" power which means they switch those puppies on ramp 'em up to 90% (or whatever normal operating capacity is) and rarely switch them off. Nat Gas is most typically used for what is referred to as peak power...which is to say when demand suddenly gets ramped up (in the busy mornings for instance) the prices for power typically lead to Nat Gas turbines kicking on to take advantage...but when the peaking power demand subsides the Nat Gas turbines are turned off because the economics suggest to stop producing power.

Lastly, on my political views...I wouldn't consider offering up nuclear as the viable option to handle global warming while expanding power capacity in the U.S., and the rest of the world, a bias right wing rant. To be entirely honest, I have no idea if the "right wing" even supports nuclear power as an alternative. My initial thoughts would be that they probably do not given the artificial security risks with terrorists. So, I am not exactly sure which group I should attribute my political bias to.

In my opinion good policy is good policy and bad policy is bad policy whether it comes from the left or the right. I am sorry to let you in on this little secret...but corn based ethonal is not economic and on top of the poor economics it doesn't even help the environment. In fact, the only thing corn based ethonal does...is burn food. Food that could be used to feed the hungry (hardly a lunatic right wing position, wouldn't you say). I also apologize that other alternatives are not currently feasible or scalable to effectively tackle global warming at the current time (that doesn't mean they won't ever be). Clean coal technology at the present time doesn't exist. Someday maybe the technology will be there and it will be the save all solution but currently it doesn't exist.

So, while I don't personally think I am unfairly presenting a portion of the bullish case for nuclear power, I guess not respecting Bill Maher's opinion on any issue that is remotely important is a crazy right wing view. Heaven forbid being skeptical of a comedian's political view. I guess that does incorporate way to much independent thought for the likes of some.

Why I'm Long Uranium and Nuclear / Power Engineering

First off, I can't write a book online...so each post has to be a reasonable size. Secondly nothing you have said is particularly crucial to my underlying thesis being correct: which is that nuclear will eventually become the "duh" solution to solving global warming while keeping costs relatively cheap. Right now the environmentalist lobby is not rationally allowing policy makers (particularly left wing policy makers) the ability to pursue nuclear as the viable option hence your points about nuclear capacity actually declining...however that will change as it becomes abundently clear that there is no other currently viable option to produce energy at a reasonable cost that simultaneously helps reduce global climate change. Third, the rest of the world waking up/expanding nuclear (as the other commentor points out) will still lead to an increase in demand for uranium - which in and of itself promotes uranium prices and simultaneously puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage which will ultimately have to be corrected by some decent policy (we hope so anyways).

My bottomline, my analysis works it is just a matter of timing. You incorrectly focus on the present situation in which nuclear is not seen (as it should be) as the viable option - which actually feeds my argument that in the future this will change after a serious "alternative energy bubble" that mis-allocates capital to the incorrect resources-which will end in tears for most investors playing bad solar companies and what not. Good luck and I geniunly appreciate the feedback.

Hedge Fund Tracking: Moore Capital Management (Louis Bacon), Q3 2008

Banning short selling is a very silly idea. Maybe during the next cycle you will read up on diversification and what expanding your selection by including short positions or short funds can do for your overall portfolio. And if the argument against me is that you can't short in IRA's, read up on the short ETF's out there. 401K and IRA investors need portfolios designed for all weather not bull markets exclusively. Heaven forbid, people actually have to pay a little bit of attention to their finances! Say it ain't so.