japan, page-16

I think that the current issues surrounding nuclear power in Japan, and to some extent, the world, need to be analysed with some perspective.

1) The nuclear reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant, which are leaking small amounts of radiation, were designed and built approximately 50 years ago. As such, these reactors and the facility do not represent the change in engineering practices that have occurred over time i.e. passive cooling

2) Nuclear power is basically the only long term power source that can be built and maintained easily, cost effectively and at a level high enough to ensure 24/7 power supply. Although green energy is desirable, the technology is not quite at the level to practically nor economically provide 100% of base load and peak power.

3) Reactors such as those at the Fukushima Nuclear plant and many other plants around the world are based on uranium fuel cycle technology. This technology was favoured over thorium based fuel cycles as countries needed a supply of fissile material to build nuclear weapons from. By utilising a thorium fuel cycle, nuclear energy could be produced with:
a) No risk of nuclear meltdown as a thorium core requires neutrons to be provided from a small fissile source such as uranium or plutonium. Remove the source of the neutrons and you have stopped the nuclear reaction.
b) No ability to produce nuclear weapons from thorium waste as it is contaminated with non-fissile material that is expensive and inefficient to purify
c) Reduced radioactive waste
d) Reduced reactor and power plant sizes due to increased energy efficiencies.


Although the nuclear energy cause has been dealt a substantial setback, in the long term uranium is one of the only "clean" sources of energy around. By using thorium to extend uranium stockpiles and improve safety, the nuclear lobby could effectively reduce most arguments against the industry, bar radioactive waste.

I guess in the end it comes down to, If I could burn 1 tonne of thorium, 200 tonnes of uranium or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal, which one would you choose?

In regards to ERA, I think that there will be plenty more downside for a few more weeks, provided that the radiation leaks are controlled without any major contamination, or months, if there is widespread contamination. Fortunately for ERA, they are in a position where a number of contracts were negotiated last year for long term supply of uranium to Japan and Europe. People keep forgetting that China and India are going to be the biggest consumers of uranium in the coming years. China and Indian are both embracing Thorium based fuel cell technology (a number of trial plants are currently in operation) and the nuclear energy industry has a lot of support behind it. This provides a great advantage to ERA, other uranium producers and rare earth element companies in Australia as they are all sitting on sizeable thorium reserves. Regardless of the comments made by several world leaders, nuclear power is the only way to provide cheap power in the long term which most voters will agree with.

In the short term ERA is going to suffer substantially, however, in the long term, ERA is set to profit from a continuation of the nuclear age provided that renewable energy does not somehow revolutionise itself overnight.

Regards,

Nick

Source: www.equitydissector.com