Showing posts with label investing in uranium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label investing in uranium. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Thorium: The Energy "Silver-Bullet" to Replace Uranium?

Last May we covered a Financial Sense Newshour interview with Kirk Sorensen, founder of Flibe Energy - he made the case for little-known element thorium as the potential “silver bullet” to our energy problems.

Today, Casey Research energy expert Marin Katusa dives into the thorium topic once again, to see if it has realistic hopes of becoming a potential alternative to uranium...

Why Not Thorium?

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist, Casey ResearchMarin Katusa

The Fukushima disaster reminded us all of the dangers inherent in uranium-fueled nuclear reactors. Fresh news last week about Tepco's continued struggle to contain and cool the fuel rods highlights just how energetic uranium fission reactions are and how challenging to control. Of course, that level of energy is exactly why we use nuclear energy – it is incredibly efficient as a source of power, and it creates very few emissions and carries a laudable safety record to boot.

This conversation – "nuclear good but uranium dangerous" – regularly leads to a very good question: what about thorium? Thorium sits two spots left of uranium on the periodic table, in the same row or series. Elements in the same series share characteristics. With uranium and thorium, the key similarity is that both can absorb neutrons and transmute into fissile elements.

That means thorium could be used to fuel nuclear reactors, just like uranium. And as proponents of the underdog fuel will happily tell you, thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium, is not fissile on its own (which means reactions can be stopped when necessary), produces waste products that are less radioactive, and generates more energy per ton.

So why on earth are we using uranium? As you may recall, research into the mechanization of nuclear reactions was initially driven not by the desire to make energy, but by the desire to make bombs. The $2-billion Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bomb sparked a worldwide surge in nuclear research, most of it funded by governments embroiled in the Cold War. And here we come to it: Thorium reactors do not produce plutonium, which is what you need to make a nuke.

How ironic. The fact that thorium reactors could not produce fuel for nuclear weapons meant the better reactor fuel got short shrift, yet today we would love to be able to clearly differentiate a country's nuclear reactors from its weapons program.

In the post-Cold War world, is there any hope for thorium? Perhaps, but don't run to your broker just yet.

The Uranium Reactor

The typical nuclear-fuel cycle starts with refined uranium ore, which is mostly U238 but contains 3% to 5% U235. Most naturally occurring uranium is U238, but this common isotope does not undergo fission – which is the process whereby the nucleus splits and releases tremendous amounts of energy. By contrast, the less-prevalent U235 is fissile. As such, to make reactor fuel we have to expend considerable energy enriching yellowcake, to boost its proportion of U235.

Once in the reactor, U235 starts splitting and releasing high-energy neutrons. The U238 does not just sit idly by, however; it transmutes into other fissile elements. When an atom of U238 absorbs a neutron, it transmutes into short-lived U239, which rapidly decays into neptunium-239 and then into plutonium-239, that lovely, weaponizable byproduct.

When the U235 content burns down to 0.3%, the fuel is spent, but it contains some very radioactive isotopes of americium, technetium, and iodine, as well as plutonium. This waste fuel is highly radioactive and the culprits – these high-mass isotopes – have half-lives of many thousands of years. As such, the waste has to be housed for up to 10,000 years, cloistered from the environment and from anyone who might want to get at the plutonium for nefarious reasons.

The Thing about Thorium

Thorium's advantages start from the moment it is mined and purified, in that all but a trace of naturally occurring thorium is Th232, the isotope useful in nuclear reactors. That's a heck of a lot better than the 3 to 5% of uranium that comes in the form we need.

Then there's the safety side of thorium reactions. Unlike U235, thorium is not fissile. That means no matter how many thorium nuclei you pack together, they will not on their own start splitting apart and exploding. If you want to make thorium nuclei split apart, though, it's easy: you simply start throwing neutrons at them. Then, when you need the reaction to stop, simply turn off the source of neutrons and the whole process shuts down, simple as pie.

Here's how it works. When Th232 absorbs a neutron it becomes Th233, which is unstable and decays into protactinium-233 and then into U233. That's the same uranium isotope we use in reactors now as a nuclear fuel, the one that is fissile all on its own. Thankfully, it is also relatively long lived, which means at this point in the cycle the irradiated fuel can be unloaded from the reactor and the U233 separated from the remaining thorium. The uranium is then fed into another reactor all on its own, to generate energy.

The U233 does its thing, splitting apart and releasing high-energy neutrons. But there isn't a pile of U238 sitting by. Remember, with uranium reactors it's the U238, turned into U239 by absorbing some of those high-flying neutrons, that produces all the highly radioactive waste products. With thorium, the U233 is isolated and the result is far fewer highly radioactive, long-lived byproducts. Thorium nuclear waste only stays radioactive for 500 years, instead of 10,000, and there is 1,000 to 10,000 times less of it to start with.

The Thorium Leaders

Researchers have studied thorium-based fuel cycles for 50 years, but India leads the pack when it comes to commercialization. As home to a quarter of the world's known thorium reserves and notably lacking in uranium resources, it's no surprise that India envisions meeting 30% of its electricity demand through thorium-based reactors by 2050.

In 2002, India's nuclear regulatory agency issued approval to start construction of a 500-megawatts electric prototype fast breeder reactor, which should be completed this year. In the next decade, construction will begin on six more of these fast breeder reactors, which "breed" U233 and plutonium from thorium and uranium.

Design work is also largely complete for India's first Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR), which will involve a reactor fueled primarily by thorium that has gone through a series of tests in full-scale replica. The biggest holdup at present is finding a suitable location for the plant, which will generate 300 MW of electricity. Indian officials say they are aiming to have the plant operational by the end of the decade.

China is the other nation with a firm commitment to develop thorium power. In early 2011, China's Academy of Sciences launched a major research and development program on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology, which utilizes U233 that has been bred in a liquid thorium salt blanket. This molten salt blanket becomes less dense as temperatures rise, slowing the reaction down in a sort of built-in safety catch. This kind of thorium reactor gets the most attention in the thorium world; China's research program is in a race with similar though smaller programs in Japan, Russia, France, and the US.

There are at least seven types of reactors that can use thorium as a nuclear fuel, five of which have entered into operation at some point. Several were abandoned not for technical reasons but because of a lack of interest or research funding (blame the Cold War again). So proven designs for thorium-based reactors exist and need but for some support.

Well, maybe quite a bit of support. One of the biggest challenges in developing a thorium reactor is finding a way to fabricate the fuel economically. Making thorium dioxide is expensive, in part because its melting point is the highest of all oxides, at 3,300° C. The options for generating the barrage of neutrons needed to kick-start the reaction regularly come down to uranium or plutonium, bringing at least part of the problem full circle.

And while India is certainly working on thorium, not all of its eggs are in that basket. India has 20 uranium-based nuclear reactors producing 4,385 MW of electricity already in operation and has another six under construction, 17 planned, and 40 proposed. The country gets props for its interest in thorium as a homegrown energy solution, but the majority of its nuclear money is still going toward traditional uranium. China is in exactly the same situation – while it promotes its efforts in the LFTR race, its big bucks are behind uranium reactors. China has only 15 reactors in operation but has 26 under construction, 51 planned, and 120 proposed.

The Bottom Line

Thorium is three times more abundant in nature than uranium. All but a trace of the world's thorium exists as the useful isotope, which means it does not require enrichment. Thorium-based reactors are safer because the reaction can easily be stopped and because the operation does not have to take place under extreme pressures. Compared to uranium reactors, thorium reactors produce far less waste and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived.

To top it all off, thorium would also be the ideal solution for allowing countries like Iran or North Korea to have nuclear power without worrying whether their nuclear programs are a cover for developing weapons… a worry with which we are all too familiar at present.

So, should we run out and invest in thorium? Unfortunately, no. For one, there are very few investment vehicles. Most thorium research and development is conducted by national research groups. There is one publicly traded company working to develop thorium-based fuels, called Lightbridge Corp. (Nasdaq: LTBR). Lightbridge has the advantage of being a first mover in the area, but on the flip side the scarcity of competitors is a good sign that it's simply too early.

Had it not been for mankind's seemingly insatiable desire to fight, thorium would have been the world's nuclear fuel of choice. Unfortunately, the Cold War pushed nuclear research toward uranium; and the momentum gained in those years has kept uranium far ahead of its lighter, more controllable, more abundant brother to date. History is replete with examples of an inferior technology beating out a superior competitor for market share, whether because of marketing or geopolitics, and once that stage is set it is near impossible for the runner-up to make a comeback. Remember Beta VCRs, anyone? On a technical front they beat VHS hands down, but VHS's marketing machine won the race and Beta slid into oblivion. Thorium reactors aren't quite the Beta VCRs of the nuclear world, but the challenge they face is pretty similar: it's damn hard to unseat the reigning champ.

[Marin has an enviable track record in the uranium sector, with one current pick up nearly 1,600% since he first recommended it to his subscribers 39 months ago. Now he's targeting a little-known company that possesses oil-recovery technology that could reward investors with similar gains.]

Friday, December 10, 2010

Why Uranium Prices are Set to Roar Through 2011 and Beyond

Check out the chart of uranium stalwart Cameco - can you spot the trend?
Cameco price chart 2011
And backing it up a bit, we can see that Cameco has decisively pushed to two year highs - and it's making a run at its pre "end of the world) levels:

Cameco long term price chart 2011
Most trend traders watching CCJ would have likely "gone long" upon its breakout to two-year highs last month - and they'd have been rewarded nicely for it over a short period of time.

But does Cameco - and uranium - have farther to run?  Chris Mayer, one of our favorite analysts, thinks so.  Chris writes in DailyWealth:
I couldn't see how the price of uranium would fail to rise. It seemed inevitable.

First, there is demand. Just look at the number of nuclear reactors under construction. According to Geordie Mark at Haywood Securities, there has been a 61% increase in the last two years. There has also been a 54% increase in the number of reactors planned and a 45% increase in the number of reactors proposed.

Take a look at the countries with the largest number of planned and proposed reactors: China, 159; India, 60; Russia, 44; USA, 31; Ukraine, 22; and South Africa, 15. According to a Morgan Stanley report, the new plants will eat up 32,900 tons of nuclear fuel. This is almost half of the demand from this year's 443 commercial reactors.

Plus, existing reactors are getting extensions. As Mark says, "We're also getting something of a sea change in views on existing reactor fleets, certainly from Europe, where we're seeing policy changes to extend reactor fleet lives." So Germany, Sweden, Belgium, and others are looking to extend their existing reactors.

All of these reactors – new and old – will need uranium. Most of this demand will have to come from the mines. For years, uranium demand has outstripped what the mines produce. The shortfall, so far, comes from existing stockpiles. But these stockpiles are dwindling.

This takes us to supply. The price of uranium is simply too low to support new investment. Most new projects won't make any money, even at $52 per pound. Mark at Haywood Securities estimates we'll need a price north of $65. Even then, "it would probably have to be higher than that to warrant risking venture capital for exploration," Haywood says. "Also, you need to see higher prices for investment in large-scale, leveraged, development-stage projects."

As it is, the uranium industry is having a hard time raising production. We've had some significant shortfalls from large mines, such as the Energy Resources of Australia's Ranger mine and BHP's Olympic Dam mine.

So I think you could see a number a lot higher – easily over $100 per pound at some point. Importantly, the market can easily support such a price.

The uranium price really has little impact on the economics of a nuclear reactor. The uranium is maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear energy. Most of the costs of nuclear energy are upfront. It's not like oil: When oil went over $140 per barrel, lots of businesses practically had to stop... They couldn't afford to operate at that price. It had a big impact on costs. That's not true with uranium.

Remember, the peak uranium price was $136 per pound in 2007. Most other commodities are pushing all-time highs. Uranium has a long way to go. Uranium also has probably the best, most clearly defined demand curve of any commodity.

As I say, I can't falsify it. I don't see any threat to the bull case for uranium in the works. At some point, as with all investment ideas, we'll find a way to falsify our case for uranium. (It is the fate of all investment ideas to spoil, like milk left out too long on the counter.) But that day seems a way off yet. There is lots of room to run – so hang onto those uranium stocks!
You can read Chris' full (excellent) piece here.

I concur with Chris - I love the supply/demand case for uranium.  And it's been awesome for years.  Demand should continue to chug ahead for years to come, and there's just not enough supply coming online to keep up.

If you're looking to play this trend, the aforementioned Cameco (CCJ) is the big dog in this industry.  Though a more diversified basket of uranium miners may be advisable, to protect you from specific company risk.

More commodity reading: Why silver may be setup for a moonshot in 2011

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Investing in Nuclear Energy and Uranium: Areas to Consider

How is the nuclear energy and uranium landscape affected by the Obama administrations new package?  Our energy guru Marin Katusa explores this - and shares how you should think about investing.  Read on to learn ways Marin thinks you can profit in this sector...




The Nuclear Option



By Marin Katusa, Chief Investment Strategist, Casey Energy Opportunities

Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced large new federal loan guarantees for the nuclear energy industry – totaling about $54 billion, or more than triple the current level of funding. Philosophically, we abhor government subsidies to any industry, but we also recognize that they’re a fact of life these days, with an inordinate influence on markets. So even though we’d prefer the government didn’t pick industry winners and losers, we must be mindful of what Washington is doing if we expect to reap profits as investors. 

In this instance, the ramping up of government support means boom times are coming for the nuclear energy industry, which is about to awaken from a three-decade long sleep. And if you correctly position your energy investment portfolio, you can benefit from a comeback that’s baked in the cake. 

Power is all about the numbers. Consider the illustration below, which shows how current electricity generation technologies stack up when it comes to producing energy (cost is in dollars per megawatt hour). Solar and wind generators are not cheap and don’t work when it’s dark or calm. They’re competitive only with heavy government subsidies and even then, will never contribute much juice to the grid. 



Source: EIA. Adapted from http://www.investingdaily.com/tes/17201/sell-wind-and-solar-energy-stocks.html 

Hydro, biomass, and geothermal fare much better, easily competing with more traditional technologies, and there are good investment opportunities among them that we’re following. But again, in the larger picture they’re minor players. 

In terms of bang for the buck, it still comes down to coal, gas and nuclear, and Washington realizes we’re going to need all three to meet our future energy needs, especially as electric vehicles begin to replace those that run on gasoline. 

The Obama administration is all for going as “green” as possible, but realizes that wind and solar are not going to cut it. Thus, after thirty years in the doghouse, the nuclear option has regained the respectability in America that it enjoys among nations such as China, where ten new plants per year are proposed (our last new construction project broke ground in 1977). 

Despite lingering doubts among those who remember Three Mile Island, uranium has been dusted off and presented to the public as a safe, environmentally friendly, cost-effective source of power. And the new generation of plants is all of those things, compared with the dinosaurs of the 1970s. 

Even bureaucrats can understand that. Thus there’s been a major policy shift in D.C., and a powerful new trend has been set in motion. That’s clear. But how to profit from it? 

First off, companies that build new nuclear power plants will see an uptick in demand for their services. The problem there is that companies operating in this sector are huge conglomerates with diverse business lines. So an increase in revenues from the unit that constructs nuclear power plants could easily be offset by a corporate decline elsewhere that has nothing to do with nuclear energy. 

Investing in conglomerates generally means an expectation of modest gains. That may be sufficient for some investors, but not for us as speculators. We prefer to look for opportunities to double our investment, or better, letting us put less money at risk for potentially greater returns. So, we want exposure to companies that will benefit from this new policy in a bigger way, those that are more of a pure play. 

For one, that means uranium producers. An increase in the number of nuclear power plants will drive higher demand for the mineral, bullish both for those who pull it from the ground and those who reprocess spent fuel. 

The price of uranium is not going to skyrocket overnight. What with regulatory hurdles and long lead times, new construction in the U.S. will take a while. But permits will be issued, and in the interim, everyone else is forging ahead, with some 60 plants currently going up worldwide. Demand will steadily increase. 

On the supply side, keep in mind that the U.S. and Russian governments have their own strategic nuclear fuel reserves, in the form of nuclear warheads. At present, half of all U.S. nuclear electricity comes from reprocessed fuel from Russian bombs, through the “Megatons to Megawatts” agreement. That has acted as a ceiling on the price of uranium in recent years. However, in 2013, Megatons to Megawatts will end, and American utilities will have to secure fuel through alternative means. 

A few enterprising Western utilities see the writing on the wall and have been proactively securing their cheap supply of uranium through long-term contracts. But the rest will be forced to pay more on the open market, squeezing their already razor-thin margins. The utilities whose management had the foresight to lock in their supply at good prices will have an edge over their competitors that will be reflected in their stock price. 

The miners are looking good, as well. If you add demand growth to the termination of the Russian pipeline, you get steadily rising prices for their product. And that will translate into fattening bottom lines. 

As an investor, you’ll want your money in the savviest utilities, along with select uranium mining companies that are poised to prosper. Then you’ll be on your way to profiting handsomely. 
__________________________________________________________________________________
Want to know which uranium mining and utility stocks are set to explode to the upside? Try Casey’s Energy Opportunities risk-free for 3 months today and gain access to one of the best energy analysts of our day, Marin Katusa. Marin and his energy team know all the inside details and have prepared a shortlist of the best companies to own. For only $39 per year, they will keep you in the loop on oil, gas, nuclear, and renewable energies. Click here for more.

Most Popular Articles This Month