Nuclear

Shocking_Blue

Dear all,

I know investment in green/clean/renewable etc. energy has seen a rise in the value of associated funds, but recently a fall (e.g. INRG). More recently there has been discussion of nuclear. The green 'version' of this is fusion, but I wondered what members thoughts were on fission and associated fuels (specifically Uranium and mining of). It seems that stocks in Uranium have recently started a bit of an upsurge in value. Not sure if there is much more potential in these. Also not sure if members know of any ETFs/funds that have a reasonable amount of their portfolio in nuclear/Uranium.

Thanks in advance.

AnotherJoe

but recently a fall (e.g. INRG).

=======

and more recently, a rise. Something like INRG shoudl be looked at as a 10-20 year investment npo point fussing over a few months one way or the other.

I woudlnt invest in nuclear because whatever its merits, (1) its getting more expensive than renewables+energy storage* every day, and (2) theres too much public sentiment against it.

* might be batteries might be something else

Nebulous2

I'm one of those whose sentiment is firmly against it. It's very much the selfish option. 20 or 30 years of electricity, leaving your descendents with a 1000 year cleanup bill. 

Nuclear cannot survive without significant state support as the costs are so prohibitive. 

It's also prone to extremely costly (and dangerous) problems 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2280903-how-serious-is-the-nuclear-power-plant-radiation-leak-in-china/

Grenage

Well maybe we'll get fusion nailed in the far future.

Ash_Pole

Grenage said:

Well maybe we'll get fusion nailed in the far future.

I'd hazard a guess that a commercially viable fusion reactor is 30 years away.

Shocking_Blue

Thanks, guys.

Yep, the ethics side of this is an obvious consideration. You might also argue, though, that however virtuous green/clean/renewables are we will still need to consider existing nuclear (and fossils) until fusion and renewables build the capacity to cater for world energy demands (EVs are further along in their development stage).

Thanks, though.

LHW99

Ash_Pole said:

Grenage said:

Well maybe we'll get fusion nailed in the far future.

I'd hazard a guess that a commercially viable fusion reactor is 30 years away.

There is 70% commercial size fusion reactor planned for operation in 2025

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57512229

This one appears to use a "magnetic bottle" type arrangement. ITER in France is the more conventional "doughnut" type i believe.

Fusion doesn't leave long lasting radioactivity behind, unlike fission reactors. Both types will however run at a raised temperature ie "hot" unlike one venture invested in by a well know fund manager.

jimjames

Ash_Pole said:

Grenage said:

Well maybe we'll get fusion nailed in the far future.

I'd hazard a guess that a commercially viable fusion reactor is 30 years away.

It's been 30 years away for the last 50 years

Type_45

I'm a big fan of nuclear energy, and indeed fracking.

The reason the Greenies don't like them is that they are an effective answer to the green concerns and they would leave the Greens with less things to boss us about with.

bostonerimus

Ash_Pole said:

Grenage said:

Well maybe we'll get fusion nailed in the far future.

I'd hazard a guess that a commercially viable fusion reactor is 30 years away.

...and it's been 30 years away for the last 50 years.

bostonerimus

I wouldn't touch an investment in fission, Uranium etc as I think I'd get burned....you might call it radiation burns.