Road Runner

Why I'm Long Uranium and Nuclear / Power Engineering

Seems to me that if a friendly country like Canada has such good reserves of Uranium, that the US should be pursuing some growth in nuclear power.

I don't want to see a huge push for nuclear because of the huge upfront cost (about $10 billion per plant) and large lead time (about 10 years) for nuclear power. Though, new types of nuclear reactors in development may change these numbers which would be very positive for the industry.

Some places with a very high population density and poor profile for solar, like the Northeast US, should pursue nuclear at a modest rate. I would not want to see a utility be aggressive in developing nuclear because the high up-front cost and long lead time could lead to another financial crisis like the Bonneville Power debacle of 1983.

Also, in places where the solar profile is very good, like the Southwest, there is the potential for a disruptive drop electricity generating requirements due to solar. In 10 years, solar will be at or below grid cost, without government subsidies, for the Southwest. Battery technology will also be such by then that solar could be used for base load. Solar will become popular not from government sponsorship, which almost always leads to slow development, but at the “grass roots” by individuals and businesses adding solar for economic reasons.

I’m not saying solar will replace everything in a short period. It will take decades to make a large impact. I’m just saying that aggressive pursuit of nuclear in the Southwest could lead to a financial crisis for utilities and/or governments.

Why I'm Long Uranium and Nuclear / Power Engineering

Thanks EDYF for the informative response.

Why I'm Long Uranium and Nuclear / Power Engineering

I second bigeasy8's question about "peak uranium". Are we going to reach "peak uranium" in the next 50 years or not? I heard that if the world went fully ahead with nuclear power that there would only be about 30 years of Uranium left in the world. Is this accurate?

Merrill McHenry on Uranium: Looking at the Big Picture

So is the world running out of Uranium or not? Or, maybe better said, when will the world see a shortage of Uranium that will make nuclear power uncompetitive.

Is it a good idea to hold back on further investment in nuclear in the US? That seems to be the million dollar question.

The Truth About Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy (Part II)

In all of this discussion, an important point may have been lost. There are generally 2 worlds of energy production and consumption that mostly don't cross: 1) oil which goes into mostly transportation fuels for "things that move", and 2) most other sources of energy that go into the electric grid, or used directly like natural gas, for "things that don't move". Heating oil is one of the few "cross over" products of oil that goes into heating homes, and natural gas is used for some vehicles.

The biggest issue that faces the US, and the rest of the world, is the coming shortage of oil. To use all the possible sources of energy mentioned in his discussion for “things that move”, something very important needs to be developed – high-energy, safe, and inexpensive batteries for plug-in vehicles. Without these batteries all the nuclear power and solar and wind, etc. that we can produce will not address the coming oil shortage. That is why battery technology is key, should be watched closely, and should be promoted.

Fortunately, battery technology is moving along a good pace due to large amounts of investment and technical breakthroughs. The advanced Lithium technology of Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) looks most promising to me. The major companies, in my opinion, are A123 soon to have an IPO, and BYD of China.

There are multiple other promising battery technologies. GE is investing heavily in liquid Sodium batteries for its locomotives, and for stationary storage for leveling wind and solar energy sources. Lead Acid battery companies are improving the long time workhorse with a Lead-Carbon technology.