Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

TMFBlacknGold (99.41)

Bringing Intelligence to the Nuclear Conversation

Recs

14

March 14, 2011 – Comments (15) | RELATED TICKERS: CCJ , URA , NLR

     It is no surprise that uranium suppliers, nuclear reactor builders, and uranium ETFs were down across the board today. Most stocks are still well off of their mid-summer lows, the ETFs not so much. The world is watching the situation in Japan as officials at multiple plants try to contain radiation leaks and cool reactors without back-up power (except for diesel generators) and cooling systems in 3 three reactors. Government officials in nuclear nations are calling for a moratorium on new reactor planning and questioning the safety of reactors already in place - rightfully so. However, investors should not mistake a call for concern as a declaration that "nuclear is dead", as Cramer so intellectually put it. Here's why:

Supply    Uranium supplies will see a short-term surplus as Japan defers yellowcake deleveries to its damaged reactors. Other than that, no reactors currently in operation will suddenly decommision themselves. Future reactors may be put on hold in Europe and the US, especially as the fear-mongering continues in the media and talkheads like Cramer, but countries like China, India, and Brazil - that desperately need the power - are plowing full-steam ahead. India and Brazil have different government structures than China, which may talk of pulling back, but probably won't take any significant action. The demand is simply too great.

     After the Cold War the US and Soviet Union agreed to a program called Megatons to Megawatts (M2M). Surplus warheads would be deconstructed and have their uranium reprocessed for use in nuclear power plants. M2M currently supplies HALF (10% of our electricity) of the US's uranium and is scheduled to end in 2013. Uranium takes a long time to mine; and while new domestic mines are currently being planned they won't be operational for another 6-10 years (2017-2021). The enormous demand increase that will abrubtly begin in 2013 will only add to the worlds demand for uranium, further increasing the spot price.

Europe    Germany had decided to extend the life of most of its nuclear plants, which are decades old. One must understand that it is extremely difficult to obtain licenses for a new plant - not to mention expensive. So why pull the plug if the thing is working? Well, those plans were put on hold Monday. That shouldn't shock anyone, but don't fret over it. The reality is, those plants probably shouldn't have had their lives extended in the first place (engineering plant design 101). European countries will meet on Tuesday to discuss their preparedness in the event of a disaster that affect their nuclear plants. Austria's nuclear chief has called for "stress tests" to analyze the strength of Europe's plants.

United States    Nuclear power in the US currently makes up 20% of our electric generation capacity. After Three Mile Island, many newly planned reactors were cancelled (ones that were started were completed). Obama's call for more nuclear plants has helped fuel the Nuclear Renaissance, but that will probably take a hit. It could be a huge mistake. Little do the media tell us, but some key environmental groups are actually IN FAVOR of nuclear power. It is clean, safe, and emits no carbon (just radioactive steam apparently. I joke!)

New Plants     The Fukushima plants in Japan are over 40 years old, which, in the nuclear industry, means they practically use Stone Age technology. Newer plants are designed differenlty and have more safety features built in. For instance, key controls and pumping systems are located in the basement of the Fukushima plants (which are nearly identical to the Oyster Creek plant in Toms River, NJ. Built by GE at the same time.). Back-up power generators are located below sea level behind a seawall. Misplaced confidence in the seawall has made the situation much less "by the book", which is why they are flooding the reactors with seawater. The reactors will never be useful again, but they were scheduled for decommission at the end of this month anyway. Oh the irony!

   New plant construction should not be halted. If anything government officials and industry leaders should be placing more confidence in newer designs. Simply cancelling newly planned reactors will only put the US in a big hole for electrical generation when our plants are decommissioned - a 20% hole. That is not so easy to fill by natural gas, coal, or alternatives. In fact, one pound of uranium produces the same amount of energy as 20,000 pounds of coal.

    In my opinion, if half a dozen 40 year old reactors can withstand a 8.9 earthquake, a tsunami, and several hundred aftershocks (most of which were 5.0 or greater) - nuclear power is a winner. Of course, the worst case scenario is still possible. Until that happens though, lets not overreact. Exactly 0 people have died in nuclear accidents in the United States. The total for planet Earth is not much higher, relatively speaking. You make an insanely more lethal decision every time you drive your car, walk outside when its thundering, or jump into a swimming pool.

     Cameco CEO Gerald W. Grandey shrugged off the developments so far. He said people are acting on emotion, rightfully so, and added that CCJ does not see a disruption in the short or long term to its supply lines (except the deferments of Japanese plants). CCJ is still on target for its 2011 forecasts.

BlacknGold

15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 14, 2011 at 6:58 PM, TMFBlacknGold (99.41) wrote:

A great post: http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/nuclear-engineer-here-to-tell/556666.

Report this comment
#2) On March 14, 2011 at 7:31 PM, topsecret10 (< 20) wrote:

Good post BlacknGold ....  well said  :)    TS

Report this comment
#3) On March 14, 2011 at 9:23 PM, ChrisGraley (31.89) wrote:

Good post.

Report this comment
#4) On March 15, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Melaschasm (88.39) wrote:

You should not underestimate the emotional opposition to nuclear power in the USA.  I am fairly confident that no new construction will begin for many years.

India and China are both likely to add nuclear energy capacity, so a lack of demand from the USA may not hurt the industry much.

Report this comment
#5) On March 15, 2011 at 10:24 AM, TMFBlacknGold (99.41) wrote:

"New plant construction should not be halted..." was my opinion not what I think will happen. As stated, emotions in the US played a significant role in stamping out nuclear after Three Mile Island.

Thanks!

Report this comment
#6) On March 15, 2011 at 10:35 AM, GrumpyGopher (54.34) wrote:

Unfortunately there are too many of the 'electricity comes from the wall' crowd out there.  Emotional resistance for nuclear will squash this (in the US) for at least a decade.  The media is out to sell advertising, not necessarily convey the truth or an accurate assesment of an ongoing situation.  I'm an engineer in another industry (oil) that had a serious environmental event recently.

 

Great link in your first comment too.

Report this comment
#7) On March 15, 2011 at 10:40 AM, topsecret10 (< 20) wrote:

Melaschasm (82.42) wrote:

You should not underestimate the emotional opposition to nuclear power in the USA.  I am fairly confident that no new construction will begin for many years.   Southern Company Is getting ready to break ground on TWO new plants,and the Obama administration has guaranteed the loans for the projects. A spokesman for the administration said YESTERDAY that there will be NO CHANGE In their opinion that nuclear Is going to be  one of our energy sources as we look towards the future....   http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2011/03/so-company-plans-two-nuclear-reactors.html

Report this comment
#8) On March 15, 2011 at 10:47 AM, TMFBlacknGold (99.41) wrote:

I heard that Obama will push through with his plans, but if the worst case scenario occurs it will be difficult for him not to at least revisit the drawing board.

Report this comment
#9) On March 15, 2011 at 10:49 AM, TMFBlacknGold (99.41) wrote:

Couldn't agree more Gopher. Sad, but true.

(What kind of engineer are you? petroleum? I'm in my third year of a bioprocess engineering degree.)

Report this comment
#10) On March 15, 2011 at 11:24 AM, TMFBlacknGold (99.41) wrote:

I love how all of the headlines are "2nd Worst Nuclear Disaster After Chernobyl" - as if there is a long list of nuclear disasters in human history.

Report this comment
#11) On March 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM, ETFsRule (99.90) wrote:

"Other than that, no reactors currently in operation will suddenly decommision themselves."

We'll see.

You accuse people of jumping to conclusions, yet you are doing the same thing here. Japan is not out of the woods yet. Radiation is drifting towards Toyko, and they are claiming that the long-term effects from this level of radiation are unknown. I find it hard to be optimistic about this right now.

Report this comment
#12) On March 15, 2011 at 12:58 PM, TMFBlacknGold (99.41) wrote:

That link has the German plants (mentioned above) that have already lived out their original lifespans. They probably shouldn't have had their lives extended in the first place (also above).

I also say that the worst case scenario is still a possibility, but China, Italy, Czech Republic, Russia, India, UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others have already stated that they will continue to pursue nuclear power.

I think this situation is much different than Three Mile Island and Chernobyl for several reasons. The explosive growth of emerging markets has created a vast need for electrical power. That being said, emotions play a very strong role in the nuclear conversation. As you said, it might be all that matters.

Report this comment
#13) On March 15, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Gemini846 (89.12) wrote:

It's kind of like flying in an airplane vs driving your car. While the raw odds of dying in a plane crash are lower than driving, the thought of having no control over a situation makes it scary.

Millions of people need power, and we are currently delivering that power via fossel fuels. The worst that can happen is a plant explosion that kills a few workers, but you need a lot of these plants to make power for Millions of people.

One Nuclear power plant provides power for millions of people, but a disaster subjects those people to an unknown quantity of fallout for their entire life if not longer.

To a lot of people who don't believe in global warming that kind of risk, no matter how small, is too dangerous.

Currently living in an area powered by a nuclear power plant, I like the clean stable energy. I just wish we had a better handle on what we could do to better handle a disaster or radioactive waste.

Report this comment
#14) On March 15, 2011 at 1:20 PM, ETFsRule (99.90) wrote:

Emotions don't factor into the equation. Let's examine the situation logically.

Japan continued to use 40-year old reactors, which you have said are stone-age compared to new reactors. They were unprepared to supply cooling water to the reactor after the accident happened.

Now, if Japan can be this sloppy, imagine what will happen if emerging markets start using nuclear power. They can build the most advanced reactors in the world, but what about the long-term maintenance of those reactors? Do you really trust the regulatory agencies in a country like India or China?

Report this comment
#15) On March 15, 2011 at 2:11 PM, TMFBlacknGold (99.41) wrote:

I agree Gemini and great analogy. I tend to be optimistic - as you can tell - about human ingenuity. We did after all figure out how to harness atomic power in the first place! 

ETFsRule.......Ah the cocky American (or Westerner)! America is the best in the world right? The best health care. The best government. That arrogance won't get America very far as the rest of the world catches up to the West. China and India have sophisticated engineers just as the US does! Of course, they rewrite the rules a little and put growth first. One look at Chinese coal mines paints that picture quite well.

But what does trusting the regulatory agencies in other countries after the plants have already been built, say decades from now, have to do with a recovery in uranium now? Nothing.

In Japan they weren't necessarily unprepared to supply cooling water: at least three safety mechanisms failed in conjunction. In sociology there is the Rule of Seven, which says that accidents don't merely happen because of one mishap but instead of a build-up of mishaps. Take Three Mile Island for example as detailed by Charles Perrow in Normal Accidents:

1) Routine blockage in plant polisher (water filter)

2) Blockage caused a moisture leak into the plant's air system

3) The blockage tripped two valves and shut down the flow of cold water into the plant's steam generator

4) No big deal, since every plant has a backup cooling system. But on that particular day the valves were not open.

5) The indicator in the control room - that would have alerted the operators to the problem - was blocked by a repair tag on the switch above it.

6) Ok, the 2nd backup system is still ready to step in. But that valve wasn't working that day either. It stuck open when it was supposed to close.

7) Again in the control room a gauge that would have alerted operators to the 2nd backup system's malfunction wasn't working itself.

Point is, no ONE big thing went wrong that day - just a sequence of unrelated events. We (you, I, the bus driver) don't know all of what happened in Japan in full detail. I can tell you it wasn't ONE event at all reactors and plants.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement