Roger Biduk writes:
There are many reasons to lower the dependency on oil and build more nuclear plants.
Just look at France. Nuclear plants produce 79% of their electricity. Plus, unlike the U.S., they reprocess their fuel. Even so, the radioactivity in the used fuel rod drops 99.9% in 40 years.
There was one, and only one nuclear accident in which there was loss of life, Chernobyl. But this type of accident wouldn't occur today. If they had a containment structure like the plants in the U.S. must have, no one would have died and no radiation would have escaped. This type of reactor design would never be licensed in the U.S.
Plus, the mistakes made by the engineers and other workers that led to the accident were unbelievable.
The incident at Three Mile Island has always been exaggerated. No one died and the damaged fuel was contained.
Because of Three Mile Island, safety regulations were changed to make sure that this would never happen again.
There's lots of uranium around, with lots of it in Canada. Estimates have the planet's known resources at around 100 years. And if you include the amount that could be collected from ocean water, the resource is limitless.
If the price of uranium were to rise, there would be more exploration and more found. Plus a substitute called thorium could be used and there's three times more of it around than uranium.
There's actually a new technology that's been developed that uses no net uranium. It's called the breeder reactor, but at the moment the price of uranium is too low for this technology to be competitive.
But there's many roadblocks when it comes to building new plants. Finding the money, insuring the plants, politics, activists and escalating construction costs are only a few.
It seems that the pros and cons are endless.....
Roger Biduk's website
Roger Biduk's Investment Blog on the U.S. Market
Roger Biduk is an investment advisor and services clients in Montreal, Hudson, West Island and throughout the provinces of Quebec & Ontario.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Roger Biduk - U.S. Oil Production Peaked Years Ago - So What?
Roger Biduk writes:
Oil production in the U.S. peaked in 1970, which was accurately predicted by geologist M. King Hubbert in the 1950s. But it's not running out of oil.
I've read that there's one trillion barrels of oil left out of two trillion that the planet started with.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t44.xls (Excel spreadsheet).
The world is not finding enough new crude to replace the known declines, not to mention increasing production levels.
What happens with the shortfall in production? Crude prices rise. Frantic, nearly (previously) insane searches begin… tar sands; shale oil; deep, deep sea drilling; ANWR. Sound familiar?
And as a tidbit to fend off the prattle… the best estimate (shaky as all untested estimates are) for ANWR is 10 billion barrels of crude resources. On the same shaky basis, U.S. offshore… 20 billion barrels. Together… 30 billion barrels.
But that’s not the worst of it. Neither can begin producing for about 10 years. And either will require 20 years for full production. The bottom line is, at full bore production, both included, we’d get output starting in 2018 and have 1.5 billion barrels/year until 2037. The U.S. uses 21 million barrels per day, 7.67 billion barrels per year. That’s ignoring demand growth. Not exactly crude oil freedom at 20% of our 2007 demand.
Peak oil is here. Accept it. Do your own research. Bring me facts, and then let’s debate.
Nuclear power
Having finally accepted the fact that we aren’t going to have fossil fuels for transportation forever (and probably not at an acceptable cost within 10 years), what can we do?
Let’s start with reviewing the world’s energy use. Click here to get educated. And here.
And finally here, to which I’ll refer. This is a terrific resource. Don’t fail to read this. It’s the single best summary I’ve ever seen for the world’s energy use.
And this for the U.S.
World use (2004)
I’ll turn these numbers into percentages (2004 numbers):
Our discussion here is about transportation… cars, trucks, trains, and planes. They run on crude oil derivatives. Now let’s suppose that crude oil derivatives get too expensive to use (peak oil). Worst case… not available or affordable for transportation. Now look at the table above.
A full 40% of our energy supply would be gone. Let’s eliminate the presently unrealistic or non-cost-effective transportation sources… coal, hydro, nuclear (in the vehicle), renewable (in the vehicle). Hydrogen fuel cells will never work. Google it.
We are left with natural gas or electricity (however generated). Unfortunately, natural gas is widely used to heat homes and factories. And natural gas is a feedstock for many critical industrial processes… fabric, glass, steel, paint, and plastics and, of utmost importance, fertilizer. (More info here and here.)
Running vehicles on natural gas is not only possible, but is being pursued. Unfortunately, its value in other areas makes its use for transportation a very dicey proposition. Our grandkids would say in horror… “You burned it up!!??”
It’s not our best choice.
So we are left with electricity, however generated. Look at the table above and mentally add 40% to each source of electricity that is left.
Coal 23%==>63%.
Nuclear 8.1%==>48.1%
Renewables 3.3%==>43.3%
Which is most technically feasible to scale? Coal? Carbon emissions… cap and trade… coal cleanup costs… coal is an unlikely source of electricity to nearly triple. And, coal has important uses in the manufacture of metals and metal products.
Renewables? If only! But scaling up by a factor of 13 is a formidable challenge. Not in the next twenty years. Not even in the next 50 years.
Nuclear? The U.S. has 104 operating nuclear power plants. Scaling up by a factor of six would require 624 plants, or 520 new ones to replace crude oil totally. They cost about $4 billion to $5 billion each. For this, we would pay $2.34 trillion. We import 10 million barrels of crude every day. We send out of the U.S. $438 billion annually for purchased crude oil.
We’d pay off the nukes in five years and four months, and then we are ahead more than $1,430 per year for every citizen in America.
Of course it’s not quite so simple… I know that. It’s way oversimplified. But it does place a yardstick on the economics if we could make electric cars (I want a Tesla) powered by nuclear power plants sending electricity into every garage. Click here for the Michigan University case for nuclear power. It’s a good summary.
Oil production in the U.S. peaked in 1970, which was accurately predicted by geologist M. King Hubbert in the 1950s. But it's not running out of oil.
I've read that there's one trillion barrels of oil left out of two trillion that the planet started with.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t44.xls (Excel spreadsheet).
The world is not finding enough new crude to replace the known declines, not to mention increasing production levels.
What happens with the shortfall in production? Crude prices rise. Frantic, nearly (previously) insane searches begin… tar sands; shale oil; deep, deep sea drilling; ANWR. Sound familiar?
And as a tidbit to fend off the prattle… the best estimate (shaky as all untested estimates are) for ANWR is 10 billion barrels of crude resources. On the same shaky basis, U.S. offshore… 20 billion barrels. Together… 30 billion barrels.
But that’s not the worst of it. Neither can begin producing for about 10 years. And either will require 20 years for full production. The bottom line is, at full bore production, both included, we’d get output starting in 2018 and have 1.5 billion barrels/year until 2037. The U.S. uses 21 million barrels per day, 7.67 billion barrels per year. That’s ignoring demand growth. Not exactly crude oil freedom at 20% of our 2007 demand.
Peak oil is here. Accept it. Do your own research. Bring me facts, and then let’s debate.
Nuclear power
Having finally accepted the fact that we aren’t going to have fossil fuels for transportation forever (and probably not at an acceptable cost within 10 years), what can we do?
Let’s start with reviewing the world’s energy use. Click here to get educated. And here.
And finally here, to which I’ll refer. This is a terrific resource. Don’t fail to read this. It’s the single best summary I’ve ever seen for the world’s energy use.
And this for the U.S.
World use (2004)
I’ll turn these numbers into percentages (2004 numbers):
Our discussion here is about transportation… cars, trucks, trains, and planes. They run on crude oil derivatives. Now let’s suppose that crude oil derivatives get too expensive to use (peak oil). Worst case… not available or affordable for transportation. Now look at the table above.
A full 40% of our energy supply would be gone. Let’s eliminate the presently unrealistic or non-cost-effective transportation sources… coal, hydro, nuclear (in the vehicle), renewable (in the vehicle). Hydrogen fuel cells will never work. Google it.
We are left with natural gas or electricity (however generated). Unfortunately, natural gas is widely used to heat homes and factories. And natural gas is a feedstock for many critical industrial processes… fabric, glass, steel, paint, and plastics and, of utmost importance, fertilizer. (More info here and here.)
Running vehicles on natural gas is not only possible, but is being pursued. Unfortunately, its value in other areas makes its use for transportation a very dicey proposition. Our grandkids would say in horror… “You burned it up!!??”
It’s not our best choice.
So we are left with electricity, however generated. Look at the table above and mentally add 40% to each source of electricity that is left.
Coal 23%==>63%.
Nuclear 8.1%==>48.1%
Renewables 3.3%==>43.3%
Which is most technically feasible to scale? Coal? Carbon emissions… cap and trade… coal cleanup costs… coal is an unlikely source of electricity to nearly triple. And, coal has important uses in the manufacture of metals and metal products.
Renewables? If only! But scaling up by a factor of 13 is a formidable challenge. Not in the next twenty years. Not even in the next 50 years.
Nuclear? The U.S. has 104 operating nuclear power plants. Scaling up by a factor of six would require 624 plants, or 520 new ones to replace crude oil totally. They cost about $4 billion to $5 billion each. For this, we would pay $2.34 trillion. We import 10 million barrels of crude every day. We send out of the U.S. $438 billion annually for purchased crude oil.
We’d pay off the nukes in five years and four months, and then we are ahead more than $1,430 per year for every citizen in America.
Of course it’s not quite so simple… I know that. It’s way oversimplified. But it does place a yardstick on the economics if we could make electric cars (I want a Tesla) powered by nuclear power plants sending electricity into every garage. Click here for the Michigan University case for nuclear power. It’s a good summary.
Roger Biduk - The Week in Cdn. Small & Mid-Cap Stocks
Roger Biduk writes:
On Monday, Kent Exploration (TSX: V.KEX) shares climbed as much as 13% before closing up 6% to 8.5 cents after the micro-cap explorer reported assay results from 12 rock samples taken from its 100% optioned Silver Hill property in south-eastern British Columbia, which included 5.238kilograms per tonne (kg/t) silver, 9.47% copper, 10.69% lead, and 3.25% zinc.
Discovery Air (TSX: T.DA.A), meanwhile, reported the termination of David Taylor as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the corporation and the appointment of David Jennings as interim President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Jennings is a Co-Chief Executive Officer of Top Aces, one of Discovery Air's wholly-owned subsidiaries. Discovery Air stock jumped 11% to 49 cents.
In Tuesday trading, Birch Mountain Resources (TSX: T.BMD) said the Muskeg Valley Quarry recently set a new daily record for limestone aggregates shipped. The new daily record of 23,100 tonnes exceeds the previous record of 20,000 tonnes set in Q2 2007 with a quarry workforce of more than 50 people - a peak productivity gain per worker of more than 250%. Birch Mountain stock popped 63% to 13 cents.
This as VMS Ventures (TSX: V.VMS) reported assay results from its Reed Lake Discovery Zone near Snow Lake, Manitoba, which included 53.19 metres of 3.08% copper. Its shares surged 15% to 42 cents.
Wednesday’s market action saw shares of Global Hunter (TSX: V.BOB) shoot up 39% to 12.5 cents after the micro-cap explorer announced results from its Rabbit South project near Kamloops, British Columbia, which averaged 0.07% molybdenum and 0.13 grams per tonne (g/t) rhenium over 91.8 metres.
As well, International Barytex Resources (TSX: V.IBX) shares powered 67%higher to 50 cents after the junior miner reported recommendations of a feasibility study on the Shituru Copper Project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which proposes developing an open pit, ore processing and electrowinning facility with an annual production capacity of 38,000 tonnes of LME grade cathode copper.
On Thursday, Wescan Goldfields (TSX: V.WGF) shares gained 24% to 31 cents after the micro cap miner said it has received an additional 146 coal permit certificates from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources. A total of 229 coal permits have now been issued to the company to date, comprising a total area of 161,777 hectares in the Hudson Bay region.
In addition, Osisko Mining (TSX: T.OSK) shares powered 16% higher to $2.95 after the miner reported new results from the definition drill program currently under way at South Barnat, a separate gold mineralized zone located about 1200 metres northeast of the center of the Canadian Malartic deposit in Quebec. Results include 2.13 grams per tonne (g/t) gold over 258.5 metres.
And, in Friday trading, Bolero Resources (TSX: V.BRU) shares soared 50% to six cents after the micro cap explorer and partner Alix Resources (TSX: V.AIX, Stock Forum) late Thursday announced drill results from the Arcadia Bay project in Nunavut, which included 6.70 grams per tonne (g/t) gold over 6.85 metres.
Finally, shares of Intrinsyc Software International (TSX: T.ICS) shot up 30% to 26 cents as the wireless software solutions provider said it has signed a software license agreement with a leading mobile phone and consumer device manufacturer to deliver its Destinator navigation software for use on a new series of personal navigation devices.
Roger Biduk's website
Roger Biduk's Investment Blog on the U.S. Market
Roger Biduk is an investment advisor and services clients in Montreal, Hudson, West Island and throughout the provinces of Quebec & Ontario.
On Monday, Kent Exploration (TSX: V.KEX) shares climbed as much as 13% before closing up 6% to 8.5 cents after the micro-cap explorer reported assay results from 12 rock samples taken from its 100% optioned Silver Hill property in south-eastern British Columbia, which included 5.238kilograms per tonne (kg/t) silver, 9.47% copper, 10.69% lead, and 3.25% zinc.
Discovery Air (TSX: T.DA.A), meanwhile, reported the termination of David Taylor as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the corporation and the appointment of David Jennings as interim President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Jennings is a Co-Chief Executive Officer of Top Aces, one of Discovery Air's wholly-owned subsidiaries. Discovery Air stock jumped 11% to 49 cents.
In Tuesday trading, Birch Mountain Resources (TSX: T.BMD) said the Muskeg Valley Quarry recently set a new daily record for limestone aggregates shipped. The new daily record of 23,100 tonnes exceeds the previous record of 20,000 tonnes set in Q2 2007 with a quarry workforce of more than 50 people - a peak productivity gain per worker of more than 250%. Birch Mountain stock popped 63% to 13 cents.
This as VMS Ventures (TSX: V.VMS) reported assay results from its Reed Lake Discovery Zone near Snow Lake, Manitoba, which included 53.19 metres of 3.08% copper. Its shares surged 15% to 42 cents.
Wednesday’s market action saw shares of Global Hunter (TSX: V.BOB) shoot up 39% to 12.5 cents after the micro-cap explorer announced results from its Rabbit South project near Kamloops, British Columbia, which averaged 0.07% molybdenum and 0.13 grams per tonne (g/t) rhenium over 91.8 metres.
As well, International Barytex Resources (TSX: V.IBX) shares powered 67%higher to 50 cents after the junior miner reported recommendations of a feasibility study on the Shituru Copper Project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which proposes developing an open pit, ore processing and electrowinning facility with an annual production capacity of 38,000 tonnes of LME grade cathode copper.
On Thursday, Wescan Goldfields (TSX: V.WGF) shares gained 24% to 31 cents after the micro cap miner said it has received an additional 146 coal permit certificates from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources. A total of 229 coal permits have now been issued to the company to date, comprising a total area of 161,777 hectares in the Hudson Bay region.
In addition, Osisko Mining (TSX: T.OSK) shares powered 16% higher to $2.95 after the miner reported new results from the definition drill program currently under way at South Barnat, a separate gold mineralized zone located about 1200 metres northeast of the center of the Canadian Malartic deposit in Quebec. Results include 2.13 grams per tonne (g/t) gold over 258.5 metres.
And, in Friday trading, Bolero Resources (TSX: V.BRU) shares soared 50% to six cents after the micro cap explorer and partner Alix Resources (TSX: V.AIX, Stock Forum) late Thursday announced drill results from the Arcadia Bay project in Nunavut, which included 6.70 grams per tonne (g/t) gold over 6.85 metres.
Finally, shares of Intrinsyc Software International (TSX: T.ICS) shot up 30% to 26 cents as the wireless software solutions provider said it has signed a software license agreement with a leading mobile phone and consumer device manufacturer to deliver its Destinator navigation software for use on a new series of personal navigation devices.
Roger Biduk's website
Roger Biduk's Investment Blog on the U.S. Market
Roger Biduk is an investment advisor and services clients in Montreal, Hudson, West Island and throughout the provinces of Quebec & Ontario.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
