01/28/09 Marco Island, Florida Contrary to the common misconception, we have no energy shortage. In fact, we have more energy available than we could ever use. If not for the anti-nuclear movement, the funders of terrorism would not be awash with petrodollars and our economy would be significantly stronger. Unfortunately, rock musicians and actors had more influence on energy policies than scientists like Petr Beckmann, whom I was lucky to have as a friend.
Dr. Beckmann was a Czech refugee from Nazism who spent much of his career in America promoting nuclear power. Until he died, Beckmann was treated as some sort of demon by the environmental movement. No longer.
Today, even green leaders are admitting the folly of rejecting this cheap, clean and safe (when compared rationally with other energy sources) technology. If there were justice, Beckmann would have statues erected in his honor.
The green turnaround on nuclear power is particularly relevant now. President-elect Obama has picked several global warming activists to serve as top officials. The most important is Harvard physicist John Holdren. As presidential science adviser, he could have a significant impact on energy policy. His career, in fact, has focused on climate change, next-generation nuclear energy and nuclear disarmament.
From the perspective of an investor, what does this mean? Among other things, it could rapidly accelerate the transition from the current generation of nuclear power plants to the next. I would, incidentally, never invest in a technology simply because it has political support. Ethanol, for example, had lots of it. It was never a good idea, though, and is finally being recognized as such.
Nuclear power as we know it today is obsolete. Current light water reactors use uranium-235. This fuel is not only expensive, but its byproducts create problems. They are difficult politically to handle and can be used to create nuclear weapons.
Those byproducts are, ironically, the reason we initially adopted uranium-235. America needed the materials for nuclear weapons. Power plants using uranium-235 provided them. Regulators, naturally, favored the technology despite the fact that there were superior fuels – especially thorium.
Thorium is not only far more abundant than uranium-235, but thorium reactors do not produce waste materials useful in nuclear weapons. In fact, the wastes are far less hazardous and much cheaper to deal with. Thorium reactors are safer in general to operate, producing little radioactive threat outside their shielding. They cannot, in fact, experience a catastrophic meltdown.
This is a much bigger deal than it appears on the surface. Fuel costs, though much lower for thorium, don’t play much of a role in total nuclear power costs. In his book The Nuclear Energy Option, Bernard Cohen estimates that safety measures to counter meltdowns account for about 75% of current plant costs. As thorium plants can’t melt down, energy costs would be significantly lower.
Additionally, thorium reactors can be almost any size. Prototypes have been made small enough for military aircraft. This makes them economically viable in developing countries without the additional cost of large-scale electrical infrastructure. Thorium reactors would also be easier to sell internationally because they cannot be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.
The shift to thorium would facilitate economic, environmental and nonproliferation causes. So why are we still building plants that burn uranium-235? This is one of the hazards of government involvement in the sciences. Once grants and regulatory attitudes that favor a technology are in place, they are huge barriers to competitors.
A free market would favor thorium over uranium anyway. Coincidentally, Obama’s administration could significantly reduce barriers to thorium energy production. I’m looking hard now at several ways to take advantage of this development.
There is one potential wrench in these works, though. It’s nuclear fusion, and it could change everything. The fuel for fusion is essentially free, so the cost of power generation is a matter of capital costs and maintenance. I’ve been a skeptic about the economics of fusion, but that has begun to change. It appears that early research grants may have derailed and forced out more promising and cheaper fusion technologies than those favored by various governments’ research efforts.
For transformational profits,
Patrick Cox
for The Daily Reckoning
Patrick Cox
Patrick Cox brings two decades of experience in software, public policy, medical economics and biotechnology to the Agora Financial table. He is editor of the Breakthrough Technology Alert and Technology Profits Confidential, as well as a contributor to the Penny Sleuth. Cox, who spent his early childhood on the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana, studied at Boise State University and has written for USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and Reason Magazine. Cox has also been featured in The Baltimore Sun and CNBC Business Magazine.
The Daily Reckoning is your premier source for making sense of the news Washington and Wall Street generate. Each business day, The Daily Reckoning calls on its stable of world-class writers and thinkers to show you how to get ahead.
Start your 100% FREE subscription to The Daily Reckoning today and you’ll get a free research report, “How to Survive the Fall of Social Security.” Simply enter your email address below to get your free report and join over 495,000 worldwide Daily Reckoning subscribers!
We Respect Your Privacy and We will
Never Share or Sell Your Email Address
Great idea ! Thorium reactors !
Where do I get some stock ? What ?
No companies will touch thorium ?
Even with government insurance ?
Well, I guess the market has spoken .
If not for the anti-nuclear movement, the funders of terrorism would not be awash with petrodollars and our economy would be significantly stronger.
This is the goofiest revisionism I’ve ever heard outside of Rush Limbaugh. No reason to read any further…
If it will work for an airplane, it should work for a home. What would the cost per unit be for 100,000 units? 1,000,000?
How soon available if pursued?
“If not for the anti-nuclear movement, the funders of terrorism would not be awash with petrodollars and our economy would be significantly stronger.”
Oil is used mostly to produce gas for cars, so despite of how many nuclear power stations we had, oil would be bought anyway
We need more thinking like this.This process sounds quite interesting. It would be nice if this energy source could change the world! I have been tracking some new developments in Cold Fusion. I recently discovered a company called Energetics Technologies. They have a process called SuperWaveFusion, which could be a possible breakthrough in Cold Fusion. Using an interaction between palladium and deuterium they have reported an excess heat reaction. I am trying to learn more about this process and would like to hear from others about what they think. I also read where two independent labs have replicated this process. Their website is SuperWaveFusion.com, let me know your thoughts
There is something very interesting that may appear very soon!
Why aren’t we dealing with the Iranian problem with this solution? They claim they want nuclear power then lets make them put their money where their mouth is and help them build a thorium reactor? If they are really serious about using nuclear for peacful purposes then this it the game changer. How could they reject the solution and at the same time the rest of the world understands the difference between u235 and thorium reactors. If Iran bites then Israel has no reason to go to war and neither do we.