Sometimes the world needs a reminder that life lends itself to finding practical solutions. Wartime forces investors to think this way - especially when it comes to money and power.
How is nuclear energy the safest option? It is definitely a viable one, but why the safest? On one hand you have the by-product of the nuclear reaction - waste. And on the other hand, it is far from safe. In case of a war your enemies know exactly where the reactors are. One internal mistake in one reactor has cost more than one can quantify. And there are thousands of them around the world. How is that safe?
As far as gold is concerned, I do agree with you on some level. However, why is it that you exclude crypto from the equation all together? Crypto and gold serve exactly the same purpose. Discrete number of units in floatation, completely decentralised and cannot be manipulated. Why in your view those two are so much different from each other..?
I grew up near Limerick, PA in the '80s as the reactors came on line, not far from Philly. Vulnerability (accidents, security, defense) and waste management are known issues and manageable, given social priority (i.e., AEC, US Navy, DOE, etc.). In addition to existing vetted designs, there are new designs in the development stage that may increase safety, efficiency, and reduce concentration (through smaller reactors). The internal mistakes are quantifiable; that may sound cold, but it is quantifiable. The fact is the cost benefit analysis is relatively clear. Not every reactor is a Chernobyl or Fukushima. The question is: "Do we want enough electricity for a modern society at our current and future expected levels?". Then reinvigorating nuclear power is the simplest relatively green option that meets that need. The server center this site is hosted on isn't going to run on a Honda generator and a camper's solar panel alone. This also doesn't have to be a zero sum game where re-emphasizing nuclear power generation completely cuts off wind, solar, and hydro. Being able to assume that reliable power comes out of the funny panel in the wall for our phones, Ev's, and Zoom Calls has a real cost. Prolog: Limerick was SCRAM'd in 2016 due to an electrical fault in the pumps that manage the recirculation system. The systems worked and it was safely taken through a hot shut down.
The new nuclear power stations have a mechanical power shutdown. Not like the old versions. So A "Chonnabole" could never occur. That said it is not completely safe. Nuclear wast has to be disposed off. Normally married in underground rock caves. Even than its 1000's of years before half life radiation reduced. So agree not safe but, with the world reluctant to use focal fuels, and the solar and wind type at best can produce 30% of the power our only option is Nuclear. May be fusion will be developed and that is totally safe, but the experiments are not going well as the tempters reached are plasma sun depituers and holding that in a magnetic ring is a good idea but items keep failing due to the heat. Further to start the reaction takes huge amounts of energy and the return is marginally more once the reaction is ongoing. I think its never going to work Nuclear is our only option if globalist do not want focal fuels. No evidence that humans causing climate change due to CO2. The earth prospers on CO2, humans need it, plants need it. Water is 98% of green house gases. Humans contribute t0 0.04% of CO2 of the 2% animals and plants pump out, until the propaganda and science consensus wakes up Nuclear is the only option. Their is the option of depopulation. Kill ¾ of the CO2 producers and chose down the trees and you can cut CO2 to the levels the Nut jobs and crazy won't.
I see Crypto as a great middle man and place to store wealth for a short period. It certainly would have been handy for Russian citizens watching their rubble plummet to buy in to save their wealth. It’s not real though. For those In Ukraine without power, internet ect you can’t access crypto when you need it most. Even fiat Paper cash beats it in that scenario. Crypto have great use cases but they aren’t money. With new coins and better tech by the day, in 50 years can you really say Bitcoin will even still be a thing? One thing I know for sure is a gold bar will still be a gold bar in 50 years from now and the history of mankind has proven it always hold value.
If a meteor with quadrillion of ounces of gold lands on the earth, what would be the value of gold then? 0..? Back to your question. Your crypto is still safely saved in your hard wallet. I am far from a crypto supporter. Nevertheless, one who does not acknowledge digital currencies' advantages, most probably cannot comprehend what cryptos are all about, and what they can bring on the table.
To answer the question that you didn’t, it don’t work at all. It’s gone, hard wallet or not. Gold still is in my hand ready to use and recognized. As for your stupid analogy, if a meteor that big “landed” on earth we wouldn’t be around to care
Nuclear energy is by far the safest form of energy even including Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukashima.
The most recent of those, Fukashima, was a nuclear plant that commissioned in 1971, which means the technology was from the 1960s. Even then, Fukashima was completely preventable, except the Japanese made critical, preventable errors in design, from building the tsunami wall too low to placing the backup generators on the side facing the ocean. I had dinner with the CEO of a nuclear reinsurance company and he said it was a mind-boggling set of errors.
The estimates for how many lives were lost from Fukashima radiation is zero to a few hundred on the high end from premature death due to cancer. However, when Japan shut off its nuclear reactors in the aftermath and switched to coal and other fossil fuels, the number of Japanese who will die premature deaths from that increased pollution exceeded several thousand in only the five year period following the accident. The media portrays Fukashima as an apocalypse, when the actual toll in lives is less than the energy sources that we live with every day - while any deaths are a tragedy, you cannot measure nuclear without the context of the alternatives (in fact, one study in 2005 found that nuclear may have saved over 1.8M lives by replacing coal and other fossil fuels).
Even highly radioactive nuclear waste is an interesting topic to explore - the physical volume of a year's worth of waste can fit into a large suitcase and thus is relatively easily stored (unlike solar panels, which turn into bulky toxic waste after 30 to 40 years). 98% of the original energy in that nuclear waste remains and can be reused in future breeder reactors - I actually suspect that our radioactive waste "dumps" may actually be strategic fuel depots for the future, as we have enough waste to power society for centuries tucked away. One of my greatest questions about the boom in solar (and batteries) is what will we do with the millions of tons of solar panels and batteries once they pass useful life? They cannot be economically recycled and are currently being thrown in landfills (often in poor African countries) where contaminants leach into the soil and create toxic wastelands.
Nuclear is the safest (even safer than solar once installation deaths are included), cleanest and most stable power source that we have today by almost all measures, and technology has only made it even safer, but in any case, I just advise learning more about the topic as even if you are opposed to it, it's better to be knowledgeable and I've found the process to be fascinating.
The vulnerability to attacks (missiles, drones, etc.) is not something I had considered much about nuclear before a week ago. I think that will continue to be something that prevents full-scale re-adoption as the world will remain a dangerous place as long as the society is polarized and self-serving idiots are deciding foreign policy (i.e, things will get worse over the next decade). I'm not selling my uranium stocks, but definitely something to always keep in mind.
I think these energy problems will actually lead to more investment in renewables (wind, solar, hydrogen, evs), no matter how resource intensive and impractical they are. That's why I think metals (aluminum, steel, copper, nickel, lithium, cobalt) will still be the longer term play. But the energy issues open the door over the next decade (and probably longer) for oil, natural gas, and coal.
Thanks, You’ve been consistent on this point for awhile now, and I’ve followed suit since the original rec brought it to my attention. URA and URNM been creeping back up day by day to the point where we already round tripped back to 3 months ago before the “sell off”. Uranium and Nuclear are my long term bet I feel best about. It’s basically a bet on reality. Long our stuff and the kids stuff.
Chris---what the hell is going on with Palladium?! Its up 3%+ every single day!!! UGH. You know anything about this? my cursory "research" all points to "returning auto demand with semiconductor production catching back up", but that's doesn't sound right. What about the backlog? Shouldn't a surplus of Palladium have accumulated during these intervening 24-odd months? We have to be missing something.
Nevermind. Apparently half of the world's Palladium production comes from Russia. I thought about 100% of it came from south africa, but it looks like its only half. Doy.
great posting for the times. i am a consultant to hydroelectric generators, and we need to embrace all viable forms of energy. some days i sit here and am dumbfounded by the insanity of half cocked "do gooders" that cant wait to tear down our society to make it into their vision of unsustainability... this war is a terrible human tragedy, but maybe it will shock people into thinking more clearly.
Well said. Especially compelling is your point about "Investors and academics who live in these types of bubbles are the ones that have the spare time to bat around postmodern ideas, new ways to virtue signal, ESG investing and “brilliant” ideas like the Green New Deal.". There is something to living in a social construct that provides the stability, resources, and consistency that facilitates opportunities (and development of opportunities) for the greatest benefit. Being able to do so with a higher degree of individual liberty is a unique and very delicate thing. Whether it's SJW's or extreme libertarian grifters, I tend to take the view that it's easy to throw rocks at our 'culture' while enjoying the security of the very society that is denigrated. I'd be more impressed if they moved to Sinaloa, Somalia, or Naziristan and practiced what they preached in one of those environments, yet no-one does that ("are you crazy; the cartel / Taliban / warlords would get me"). There's nuance in pointing out that bath water is dirty and needs to be changed that doesn't involve the higher metaphysical context of why we should firebomb the whole bathroom or never take baths in the first place.
As someone with 20 percent or more of their net worth in gold, uranium, and oil, I obviously agree. I did not want something like this to prove me right, though.
Just a few comments to add to the many points already outlined:
1) Further improving nuclear is a technology problem to address. It is already the safest high density generation. The point is that it is *not* a physics problem. Many solutions are in development with Gen IV designs, but research funding has been hampered for almost 4 decades which has slowed it down (thanks "green movement").
2) The problem with solar and wind is a physics problem. The sources are intermittent, low density, and for solar require replacement every 20-25 years. They are an environmental nightmare at the scale required. You cannot get there from here on this tech alone - no amount of technology will make it possible.
3) There is a solution for nuclear waste - fast neutron reactors (some of which are operational today). The spent fuel contains contains virtually no actinides except for non fissioned uranium and plutonium, which can be effectively recycled. It is a problem that can be solved & we have the understanding of how. Some further research here can take it over the finish line.
Thorium . Safe ,abundant ,cheap , 2000 years of supply , Cannot be made into weapons , Can turn off reaction with a switch ...on /off . India is building some .
The pic of the '80's, quiche-eating, NAKoG douches on the bench in their pastel yuppie garb (camo of the suburbs) made me laugh. Man, how we scorned their ilk back in the day. Makes rolling coal and logging boots and mounds of red meat all the more delectable.
The problem is that the "investors, academic. and loudmouth activists" have succeeded in installing a woke and deranged president in the White House, who refuses to allow for higher domestic oil production, refuses to think about nuclear energy, and refuses to apply any common sense at all.
And the worst thing is, the midterm elections are still more than 8 months away! And by then it might be too late.
Good summary. Many will also find out the hard way that self reliance is critical. From health and fitness to being able to produce food, heat and security will become very important soon for those taking them for granted in the recent past. This is what America used to have when we were more rural and small farm based. People could just do things for themselves and that inherently led to healthier lifestyles. Now the focus is coastal with things like climate and social justice taking up the free time of millions all day every day. A friend once said "A hard day in the garden makes you think more clearly about what matters and less deeply about things that don't". Plus you will certainly sleep better. I'm planning the spring garden now and excited to open the greenhouse. Pray, plan, prepare and RESIST.
It takes roughly 10 years from plan-to-startup for a nuclear power plant. Massive cost and schedule overruns on too many projects in the last decade. Safe? Just ask the folks in Washington state, NY state, Chernobyl or Fukashima to start...
Thorium is more abundant and safer.
In the meantime an oil and gas well can be drilled and completed in months, gas plants in place in 18 months. Certainty on cost and schedule. This is needed for practically every input in building a nuclear power plant.
My bet on energy for the next decade is oil and gas.
Windmills and Suncatchers? A massively diluted energy gathering system that needs batteries that require minerals that are off the charts in price and rapidly becoming harder to find. Oh yah, a cooper mine takes 10 years from idea to permit and operations as well.
Silver is better than gold.
When the central banks fall back in the currency of last resort (aka Goldman) they may confiscate it due to a global currency emergency. Silver probably not because over 50% is required by industry.
How is nuclear energy the safest option? It is definitely a viable one, but why the safest? On one hand you have the by-product of the nuclear reaction - waste. And on the other hand, it is far from safe. In case of a war your enemies know exactly where the reactors are. One internal mistake in one reactor has cost more than one can quantify. And there are thousands of them around the world. How is that safe?
As far as gold is concerned, I do agree with you on some level. However, why is it that you exclude crypto from the equation all together? Crypto and gold serve exactly the same purpose. Discrete number of units in floatation, completely decentralised and cannot be manipulated. Why in your view those two are so much different from each other..?
I grew up near Limerick, PA in the '80s as the reactors came on line, not far from Philly. Vulnerability (accidents, security, defense) and waste management are known issues and manageable, given social priority (i.e., AEC, US Navy, DOE, etc.). In addition to existing vetted designs, there are new designs in the development stage that may increase safety, efficiency, and reduce concentration (through smaller reactors). The internal mistakes are quantifiable; that may sound cold, but it is quantifiable. The fact is the cost benefit analysis is relatively clear. Not every reactor is a Chernobyl or Fukushima. The question is: "Do we want enough electricity for a modern society at our current and future expected levels?". Then reinvigorating nuclear power is the simplest relatively green option that meets that need. The server center this site is hosted on isn't going to run on a Honda generator and a camper's solar panel alone. This also doesn't have to be a zero sum game where re-emphasizing nuclear power generation completely cuts off wind, solar, and hydro. Being able to assume that reliable power comes out of the funny panel in the wall for our phones, Ev's, and Zoom Calls has a real cost. Prolog: Limerick was SCRAM'd in 2016 due to an electrical fault in the pumps that manage the recirculation system. The systems worked and it was safely taken through a hot shut down.
I know Limerick well. Lived in Lansdale for a while and used to train at Philadelphia Rock Gym in Oaks. Not that far away.
The new nuclear power stations have a mechanical power shutdown. Not like the old versions. So A "Chonnabole" could never occur. That said it is not completely safe. Nuclear wast has to be disposed off. Normally married in underground rock caves. Even than its 1000's of years before half life radiation reduced. So agree not safe but, with the world reluctant to use focal fuels, and the solar and wind type at best can produce 30% of the power our only option is Nuclear. May be fusion will be developed and that is totally safe, but the experiments are not going well as the tempters reached are plasma sun depituers and holding that in a magnetic ring is a good idea but items keep failing due to the heat. Further to start the reaction takes huge amounts of energy and the return is marginally more once the reaction is ongoing. I think its never going to work Nuclear is our only option if globalist do not want focal fuels. No evidence that humans causing climate change due to CO2. The earth prospers on CO2, humans need it, plants need it. Water is 98% of green house gases. Humans contribute t0 0.04% of CO2 of the 2% animals and plants pump out, until the propaganda and science consensus wakes up Nuclear is the only option. Their is the option of depopulation. Kill ¾ of the CO2 producers and chose down the trees and you can cut CO2 to the levels the Nut jobs and crazy won't.
I see Crypto as a great middle man and place to store wealth for a short period. It certainly would have been handy for Russian citizens watching their rubble plummet to buy in to save their wealth. It’s not real though. For those In Ukraine without power, internet ect you can’t access crypto when you need it most. Even fiat Paper cash beats it in that scenario. Crypto have great use cases but they aren’t money. With new coins and better tech by the day, in 50 years can you really say Bitcoin will even still be a thing? One thing I know for sure is a gold bar will still be a gold bar in 50 years from now and the history of mankind has proven it always hold value.
When the power is shut off, how does crypto work?
If a meteor with quadrillion of ounces of gold lands on the earth, what would be the value of gold then? 0..? Back to your question. Your crypto is still safely saved in your hard wallet. I am far from a crypto supporter. Nevertheless, one who does not acknowledge digital currencies' advantages, most probably cannot comprehend what cryptos are all about, and what they can bring on the table.
To answer the question that you didn’t, it don’t work at all. It’s gone, hard wallet or not. Gold still is in my hand ready to use and recognized. As for your stupid analogy, if a meteor that big “landed” on earth we wouldn’t be around to care
:(
Nuclear energy is by far the safest form of energy even including Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukashima.
The most recent of those, Fukashima, was a nuclear plant that commissioned in 1971, which means the technology was from the 1960s. Even then, Fukashima was completely preventable, except the Japanese made critical, preventable errors in design, from building the tsunami wall too low to placing the backup generators on the side facing the ocean. I had dinner with the CEO of a nuclear reinsurance company and he said it was a mind-boggling set of errors.
The estimates for how many lives were lost from Fukashima radiation is zero to a few hundred on the high end from premature death due to cancer. However, when Japan shut off its nuclear reactors in the aftermath and switched to coal and other fossil fuels, the number of Japanese who will die premature deaths from that increased pollution exceeded several thousand in only the five year period following the accident. The media portrays Fukashima as an apocalypse, when the actual toll in lives is less than the energy sources that we live with every day - while any deaths are a tragedy, you cannot measure nuclear without the context of the alternatives (in fact, one study in 2005 found that nuclear may have saved over 1.8M lives by replacing coal and other fossil fuels).
Even highly radioactive nuclear waste is an interesting topic to explore - the physical volume of a year's worth of waste can fit into a large suitcase and thus is relatively easily stored (unlike solar panels, which turn into bulky toxic waste after 30 to 40 years). 98% of the original energy in that nuclear waste remains and can be reused in future breeder reactors - I actually suspect that our radioactive waste "dumps" may actually be strategic fuel depots for the future, as we have enough waste to power society for centuries tucked away. One of my greatest questions about the boom in solar (and batteries) is what will we do with the millions of tons of solar panels and batteries once they pass useful life? They cannot be economically recycled and are currently being thrown in landfills (often in poor African countries) where contaminants leach into the soil and create toxic wastelands.
Nuclear is the safest (even safer than solar once installation deaths are included), cleanest and most stable power source that we have today by almost all measures, and technology has only made it even safer, but in any case, I just advise learning more about the topic as even if you are opposed to it, it's better to be knowledgeable and I've found the process to be fascinating.
Michael Shellenberger, a former anti-nuclear environmentalist, is a great place to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Why-nuclear-is-an-environmentalists-story
The vulnerability to attacks (missiles, drones, etc.) is not something I had considered much about nuclear before a week ago. I think that will continue to be something that prevents full-scale re-adoption as the world will remain a dangerous place as long as the society is polarized and self-serving idiots are deciding foreign policy (i.e, things will get worse over the next decade). I'm not selling my uranium stocks, but definitely something to always keep in mind.
I think these energy problems will actually lead to more investment in renewables (wind, solar, hydrogen, evs), no matter how resource intensive and impractical they are. That's why I think metals (aluminum, steel, copper, nickel, lithium, cobalt) will still be the longer term play. But the energy issues open the door over the next decade (and probably longer) for oil, natural gas, and coal.
Thanks, You’ve been consistent on this point for awhile now, and I’ve followed suit since the original rec brought it to my attention. URA and URNM been creeping back up day by day to the point where we already round tripped back to 3 months ago before the “sell off”. Uranium and Nuclear are my long term bet I feel best about. It’s basically a bet on reality. Long our stuff and the kids stuff.
another super article.
Chris---what the hell is going on with Palladium?! Its up 3%+ every single day!!! UGH. You know anything about this? my cursory "research" all points to "returning auto demand with semiconductor production catching back up", but that's doesn't sound right. What about the backlog? Shouldn't a surplus of Palladium have accumulated during these intervening 24-odd months? We have to be missing something.
Nevermind. Apparently half of the world's Palladium production comes from Russia. I thought about 100% of it came from south africa, but it looks like its only half. Doy.
great posting for the times. i am a consultant to hydroelectric generators, and we need to embrace all viable forms of energy. some days i sit here and am dumbfounded by the insanity of half cocked "do gooders" that cant wait to tear down our society to make it into their vision of unsustainability... this war is a terrible human tragedy, but maybe it will shock people into thinking more clearly.
Well said. Especially compelling is your point about "Investors and academics who live in these types of bubbles are the ones that have the spare time to bat around postmodern ideas, new ways to virtue signal, ESG investing and “brilliant” ideas like the Green New Deal.". There is something to living in a social construct that provides the stability, resources, and consistency that facilitates opportunities (and development of opportunities) for the greatest benefit. Being able to do so with a higher degree of individual liberty is a unique and very delicate thing. Whether it's SJW's or extreme libertarian grifters, I tend to take the view that it's easy to throw rocks at our 'culture' while enjoying the security of the very society that is denigrated. I'd be more impressed if they moved to Sinaloa, Somalia, or Naziristan and practiced what they preached in one of those environments, yet no-one does that ("are you crazy; the cartel / Taliban / warlords would get me"). There's nuance in pointing out that bath water is dirty and needs to be changed that doesn't involve the higher metaphysical context of why we should firebomb the whole bathroom or never take baths in the first place.
As someone with 20 percent or more of their net worth in gold, uranium, and oil, I obviously agree. I did not want something like this to prove me right, though.
Ah the oddities of letting an irate ignorant prepubescent Swedish teenager dictate your energy policy.
Just a few comments to add to the many points already outlined:
1) Further improving nuclear is a technology problem to address. It is already the safest high density generation. The point is that it is *not* a physics problem. Many solutions are in development with Gen IV designs, but research funding has been hampered for almost 4 decades which has slowed it down (thanks "green movement").
2) The problem with solar and wind is a physics problem. The sources are intermittent, low density, and for solar require replacement every 20-25 years. They are an environmental nightmare at the scale required. You cannot get there from here on this tech alone - no amount of technology will make it possible.
3) There is a solution for nuclear waste - fast neutron reactors (some of which are operational today). The spent fuel contains contains virtually no actinides except for non fissioned uranium and plutonium, which can be effectively recycled. It is a problem that can be solved & we have the understanding of how. Some further research here can take it over the finish line.
Thorium reactors the size of a house can power a city . Very safe .
Thorium . Safe ,abundant ,cheap , 2000 years of supply , Cannot be made into weapons , Can turn off reaction with a switch ...on /off . India is building some .
The pic of the '80's, quiche-eating, NAKoG douches on the bench in their pastel yuppie garb (camo of the suburbs) made me laugh. Man, how we scorned their ilk back in the day. Makes rolling coal and logging boots and mounds of red meat all the more delectable.
I agree with all your points, great article as usual Chris
The problem is that the "investors, academic. and loudmouth activists" have succeeded in installing a woke and deranged president in the White House, who refuses to allow for higher domestic oil production, refuses to think about nuclear energy, and refuses to apply any common sense at all.
And the worst thing is, the midterm elections are still more than 8 months away! And by then it might be too late.
Good summary. Many will also find out the hard way that self reliance is critical. From health and fitness to being able to produce food, heat and security will become very important soon for those taking them for granted in the recent past. This is what America used to have when we were more rural and small farm based. People could just do things for themselves and that inherently led to healthier lifestyles. Now the focus is coastal with things like climate and social justice taking up the free time of millions all day every day. A friend once said "A hard day in the garden makes you think more clearly about what matters and less deeply about things that don't". Plus you will certainly sleep better. I'm planning the spring garden now and excited to open the greenhouse. Pray, plan, prepare and RESIST.
It takes roughly 10 years from plan-to-startup for a nuclear power plant. Massive cost and schedule overruns on too many projects in the last decade. Safe? Just ask the folks in Washington state, NY state, Chernobyl or Fukashima to start...
Thorium is more abundant and safer.
In the meantime an oil and gas well can be drilled and completed in months, gas plants in place in 18 months. Certainty on cost and schedule. This is needed for practically every input in building a nuclear power plant.
My bet on energy for the next decade is oil and gas.
Windmills and Suncatchers? A massively diluted energy gathering system that needs batteries that require minerals that are off the charts in price and rapidly becoming harder to find. Oh yah, a cooper mine takes 10 years from idea to permit and operations as well.
Silver is better than gold.
When the central banks fall back in the currency of last resort (aka Goldman) they may confiscate it due to a global currency emergency. Silver probably not because over 50% is required by industry.