Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Ignoring Energy Transition Realities as We Greenify

beebee
edited March 2 in Other Investing
Report on Energy Transitions (from Fuller Treacy Money):
2021/March/ignoringenergytransitionrealities
We are making a terrible mistake when it comes to future energy policies. In previous letters, we have touched upon the challenges of the so-called “energy transition.” Today, we will explain in detail the imminent harm awaiting investors and policy makers who fail to acknowledge certain realities. Every green energy proposal we have examined relies on the trifecta of wind, solar, and electric vehicles combined with various battery technologies. In recent months, a renewed “hydrogen mania” has broken out as well, which adds a fourth leg to the green energy stool. Unfortunately, based upon our extensive research, these plans, including the current hydrogen craze, are bound to at best severely disappoint and, at worst, outright fail in what they attempt to accomplish.
and,
we believe there is a more straightforward, feasible solution. Nuclear power is the only technology that can provide reliable carbon-free base-load power. Any proposal seeking to seriously address carbon emissions must heavily incorporate nuclear electricity generation. Unfortunately, none of the current proposals include a material nuclear contribution. There is some reason to be optimistic however the Biden administration has acknowledged the need for nuclear power in combating climate change and may signal an important impending change in policy outlook.
Follow up Information:
blog.gorozen.com/blog

Nuclear & Uranium ETF (NLR) pays a 2.31% dividend and has a P&E of 14
Link to Overview:
https://etfdb.com/etf/NLR/#etf-ticker-profile

Vaneck Website:
https://vaneck.com/etf/equity/nlr/overview/

Search word "Nuclear" here at MFO:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/search?Search=nuclear

Comments

  • GreeNews:

    Oil Trade Group Is Poised to Endorse Carbon Pricing
    oil-trade-group-considers-endorsing-carbon-pricing

    Mining magnets: Arctic island finds green power can be a curse
    arctic-island-finds-green-power-can-be-a-curse
  • If you're going to discuss something as serious as the future of the planet's environment and our energy supply, I would recommend finding a more objective source than a natural resources money manager who invests primarily in oil, nuclear power and mining stocks--gorozen.com/firm/team--and has largely failed at it--https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/grhax/performance
  • There’s that...YTD their 3 year old fund is in the top 4%...hoping others find value in what appears to be a well written article along with a few other finds.
  • edited March 2
  • edited March 2
    Nuclear plants are prob best resources but don't build one in my backyard (maybe most MFOers may feel same way) but perhaps 1000 miles away
  • edited March 2
    Aside from the environmental waste disposal problem and labor/community radiation exposure problem, the cost advantages of nuclear don't appear to be there. From the previous link:
    Existing nuclear plants have relatively low operation, maintenance, and fuel costs compared to many fossil fuel plants; however these routine costs still make nuclear power economically uncompetitive in comparison with natural gas, wind, and solar.

    New nuclear plants are another matter altogether; their continuing high construction costs make them uneconomical. Between 2002 and 2008, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In reality, even those astronomical projections have been surpassed. The two new units at the Vogtle Plant in Georgia, the only new nuclear construction in the United States, are now years behind schedule and projected to cost more than twice their original budget of $14 billion. Similarly, it was estimated that Duke Energy’s proposed Levy County Nuclear Power Plant in Florida would cost $5 billion, but projections ballooned to $22 billion. The project was canceled in 2017, and Duke Energy decided to focus on solar energy expansion instead.

    Reactors also typically require a long period of planning, licensing, and building. The 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for nuclear reactors worldwide was just under 10 years.

    The WSINR report also estimates that the cost of generating nuclear energy ranges between $112 and $189 per megawatt-hour (MWh), while solar power costs between $36 and $44 and onshore wind power comes in at $29 to $56.
  • How many hours of rolling black outs are YOU willing to set through ? Do what you can to save the planet, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water !
    Stay safe, Derf
  • Going by the holdings in the VanEck ETF, I already have some exposure to radiation. ;-). And they charge a higher ER for the privilege.

    I'm not in the mood to specialize in one energy source since I just sold GASFX to harvest a tax loss while selling some other duds and small positions.

  • Derf said:

    How many hours of rolling black outs are YOU willing to set through ? Do what you can to save the planet, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water !
    Stay safe, Derf

    Did they have rolling blackouts in Iowa?

    Why?

    Natural gas facilities weren't prepared for cold weather.

    Continuity of operations seems not to be a major planning factor in some states, and some industries.

  • The road to carbon neutral may require carbon to be driven forward...


    At a time when most major companies are working on plans to cut their carbon emissions, one of the darlings of green investing is working to increase its emissions footprint.

    You read that right. Thanks to its explosive expansion in China and a planned car plant in India, Tesla Inc. is in the process of not just increasing the total sum of its emissions—a pretty inevitable consequence of growth in our current carbonized world—but increasing the amount of pollution each of its vehicles generates, too.
    Bloomberg Opinion Piece:
    tesla-should-come-clean-on-the-real-emissions-of-its-cars
  • Great article @Mark

    Unpacking the carbon emission problem into components from mining (materials) to manufacturing (vehicle components) to energy Production / Conversion, distribution, storage, grid back-up, maintenance, recycling...lots of places to R&D carbon neutral efficiencies.

    Aside from these great recent efforts in reducing transportation emissions, we have other sectors of human activity such as Manufacturing, Industry, Energy, Aviation, Commercial/Residential, Agriculture, and Land Use that are high carbon producers as well. Humans negatively impact the environment in so many other ways in addition to carbon emissions.

    EPA Website:
    https://epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    Here's the MIT link to Carbon Counter mentioned in your NYT link:
    https://carboncounter.com/#!/explore
  • One of the best investment I think for intermediate term will be power generation companies using natural gas feed (cheaper and less polluting than gas burning in the ICE cars) because thousands/M of electric vehicles will charge in the night. Power companies utilization rate is low in the night.
  • I have heard two interviews, one on “Sixty Minutes,” with Bill Gates regarding his recent book. I have not read “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, “ but the ideas Gates has and the resources he’s putting into their realization are quite impressive. In short, unless we do solve the problem of the pollution caused by manufacturing concrete, for example, and a wide range of related problems, we won’t have much of a planet left to ruin. Gates impressed me as being far more than a well-meaning policy wonk; he comes across as sincere and dedicated while avoiding dramatization and preaching. For him, climate change is the greatest challenge mankind has ever faced and meeting it will require total mobilization of our brains and commitment.
  • edited March 6
    And I believe that he is exactly right.
  • Same
  • beebee
    edited March 8
    Andy Lane has managed the construction of enormous facilities for extracting and transporting natural gas, in places like Trinidad and Indonesia.

    Now he is working in his native England, taking on a complex and expensive venture that essentially aims to reverse what he has spent much of his career doing.

    Mr. Lane’s newest assignment is designed to collect carbon pollution from a group of chemical plants in northeast England and send it to a reservoir deep under the North Sea.

    The multibillion-dollar project could be a breakthrough for a technology known as carbon capture and storage, a concept that has been around for at least a quarter-century to reduce the climate-damaging emissions from factories.

    The idea sounds deceptively simple: Divert pollutants before they can escape into the air, and bury them deep in the ground where they can do no harm.
    https://nytimes.com/2021/03/08/business/carbon-capture-bp.html
  • As difficult as carbon sequestration (aka: hiding it under the rug) may be, it's going to be a lot easier than transporting almost of the current energy transfer via the electric grid.

    Cf: Ignoring Energy Transition Realities: Some Unanswered Questions
  • beebee
    edited June 3
    Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are building a $1 billion 'next-generation' nuclear reactor in Wyoming...
    The plant, which features a sodium reactor and molten salt energy storage system, would be safer, perform better, and be less expensive than traditional nuclear power, Gates said in a press briefing.
    bill-gates-warren-buffett-nuclear-reactor-wyoming

    and,
    Petrostates See Dire Consequences If World Rejects Oil Too Fast...
    It’s no surprise that top officials from the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters want to see the industry continue for decades to come. Their comments are illustrative of the vast gulf between the world’s current carbon-based energy system and the changes required to prevent damaging climate change.
    https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-03/petrostates-see-dire-consequences-if-world-rejects-oil-too-fast?srnd=premium
  • edited June 3
    Hilarious headline: "Petrostates See Dire Consequences If World Rejects Oil Too Fast." Companies like Exxon have known about the threat anthropogenic fossil-fuel driven climate change posed for over 40 years: https://scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ Now the drill baby drill companies are claiming we're moving too fast.
Sign In or Register to comment.