WTI Crude


Brent Crude


Natural Gas




Heating Oil


Rotate device for more commodity prices

Bill Gates And Other Billionaires Backing A Nuclear Renaissance

Bill Gates And Other Billionaires Backing A Nuclear Renaissance

Let’s for a second imagine a world without nuclear energy. That’s a tough one but let’s try. No nuclear bombs, of course, no Chernobyl and Fukushima, no worries about Iran and North Korea. A wonderful world, maybe?

Probably not, because without nuclear energy we would have burned millions more tons of coal and billions more barrels of oil. This would have brought about climate change of such proportions that what we have today would have seemed negligible.

Nuclear energy and uranium, which feeds it, are controversial enough even without any actual accident happening. Radioactivity is dangerous. Nobody is arguing against it. When an accident does take place, the public backlash is understandably huge. What many opponents of uranium forget to mention, however, are the benefits of nuclear energy and the fact that the statistical probability of serious accidents is pretty low. They focus on the “What if?” and neglect the other side of the coin. But let’s try to see both sides of the issue.

The positive side of nuclear energy definitely deserves more attention than it’s currently getting. Uranium-fueled power is obscenely greener than fossil fuels. It’s also cheaper and, perhaps surprisingly for many, it is actually lower in carbon emissions than solar and biomass. This means that the construction of a nuclear plant, including materials used and the work itself plus the operation of the plant over its lifecycle, produces fewer greenhouse gases than the construction and operation of a solar farm.

What’s perhaps more important is that nuclear energy is much more easily scalable than other low or zero-carbon energy sources. And that isn’t just some claim from the nuclear industry – that’s something climate scientists and environmentalists are saying. Here’s a public appeal by several such scientists, urging greater support for nuclear energy, noting that “While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.”

The uranium mining industry is certainly aware of these attitudes and it’s also aware of a global trend: countries are building new nuclear plants and upgrading existing ones. Forget about Germany and its plans to go nuclear-free – plans that will cost it tens of billions, by the way. None other than Sweden--the poster child of renewable energy, the country that vowed to become the first fossil-free state in the world--is not only choosing to maintain its nuclear fleet; it is updating them. China is building 20 new reactors, South Korea is working on four; and even Japan is restarting some of the capacity shut down after the Fukushima disaster and building new reactors. Related: Lockheed Tech Breakthrough Is About To Revolutionize Oil Exploration

The growth of nuclear power around the world will cause demand for uranium to surge, and uranium prices are set to double over the next two years. “Reality is finally trumping negative sentiment,” says Paul D. Gray, CEO of uranium and lithium miner Zadar Ventures Ltd. “And the reality is that we can’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels without nuclear power.”
Uranium will be needed in prodigious volumes to power up new nuclear reactors, and much of it will come from the Athabasca Basin in Canada. This area, rich in high-grade uranium, is being targeted by both public giants like Cameco (TSX:COO) and Areva (EPA:AREVA) and smaller miners such as Zadar Ventures, CanAlaska Uranium and Mega Uranium.

Yet what about those notorious safety risks? Nuclear energy may be green, but it is also more dangerous than, say, wind energy.

Again, nobody in nuclear power is contesting that. What they are doing instead is working on new, safer reactors. Welcome to the next generation—reactors that are much safer than their predecessors. But they will still need uranium.

The U.S. government recently announced an $82-million funding program for next-generation nuclear reactor development. The UK is even more generous, pledging last year £250 million over five years for research and development in the nuclear energy field.

Private investors such as Bill Gates, D. E. Shaw, and Chinese billionaire Li Kashing have been pouring money in such research – and uranium mining – for years now.

The nuclear reactors of tomorrow will not only be safer than the ones we already have – which are themselves safer than many believe – they will be much more efficient.

Bill Gates’ TerraPower, for instance, has designed a traveling wave reactor, which utilizes nuclear waste. Another design, by two MIT researchers, again uses waste, mixed into molten salt. In short, the nuclear reactors of the future will utilize not just regular uranium but will take care of the waste as well – the same waste that raises so much concern among environmentalists and the general public.

So it’s the Athabasca Basin that will be ground zero in the nuclear energy rebound.

Some even call the Athabasca Basin the “Persian Gulf of uranium”. It not only contains some of the highest-grade uranium in the world, it is also home to two of the top seven deposits in terms of metal content. The basin has a well developed power, transport and processing infrastructure, too, which makes it all the more attractive for miners and mining investors.

Athabasca will be one of the places to watch in the coming years as the uranium market swings from a glut into a deficit. The glut was caused by the sharp drop in demand following the Fukushima events in 2011. Now the pendulum is moving back, with a deficit in the making as uranium miners curbed exploration and production due to falling prices.

Back in 2012, Bill Gates noted that “When you have fission, you have a million times more energy than when you burn hydrocarbons. That's a nice advantage to have.”

Today, it’s getting increasingly clear that it’s more than “nice”. Nuclear power is unique among zero-carbon energy sources: its production is consistent as it doesn’t depend on sunlight or wind. This, coupled with affordability and safety – whatever environmental extremists say – makes nuclear energy an indispensable element of the global renewable energy mix for the future.

It also suggests uranium is more than likely to take the center stage it deserves as fossil fuels relinquish the spotlight.

The Athabasca basin will be in the undeniable spotlight sooner than you might think in what will be a boon for major Northern American operators as well as juniors, such as Zadar Ventures.

“It’s impossible to find another natural resource that is so fundamentally necessary to our future,” says Zadar’s Gray. “This will be the year of the uranium rebound, and nuclear energy’s next-generation safeguards will rewrite the global energy map once again.”

By James Stafford of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Craig Schumacher on July 06 2016 said:
    The assertion that wind power is not as dangerous as nuclear power is incorrect. Per unit of energy delivered, wind power causes more injuries and fatalities than nuclear power. This is demonstrated in the ExternE report put out by the EU.
  • G.R.L. Cowan on July 07 2016 said:
    Schumacher's point is true, as illustrated by actual multiple-fatality wind turbine accidents since March 2011. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, occasions such as October 30, 2013 in the Piet de Wit wind farm and February 22, 2012 at the Zhurihe one in China. Wind power is much less threatening *to the fossil fuel interests*. To its workers and neighbours, more so.

    But that's not the piece's first cowardly concession to mammon.
  • Erica Gray on July 07 2016 said:
    New and improved nuclear reactors?
    Why don't the billionaires figure out what to do with the current hazardous for thousands of years nuclear waste first!
  • Robert Valiant on July 07 2016 said:
    "the same waste that raises so much concern among environmentalists and the general public"

    I gather the author is not an environmentalist, nor a member of general public.

    Question: is the author (some sort of enlightened elite, I imagine) not concerned about nuclear waste?

    - Bob Valiant, Hanford Site Down-winder
  • Danielle on July 07 2016 said:
    Erica, that is what they said they are doing. The new nuclear reactors are planning on using waste as fuel.

    You appear to be one of the fear mongers that erroneously gives the nuclear industry a bad reputation.
  • jhpace1 on July 07 2016 said:
    If we would declassify the free energy devices stolen by the US Department of Defense for decades, including solar panels that get 40% efficiency, for starters, we wouldn't need oil. Or coal. Or nuclear. Once we make "left-handed material" super-transformers we can turn 24 volts into 1MW power plants. Magnet-based devices that get zero-point energy and can transform it to alternating current.

    We are kept living in the same 1940s "box" because it makes the most money for the owners.
  • Timothy Crook on July 07 2016 said:
    I hate to nitpick an article that has a mostly positive outlook for nuclear, but I'm afraid I must.

    "Radioactivity is dangerous. Nobody is arguing against it."

    The perceived danger of radioactivity is greatly exaggerated. These sorts of generalizations are what nuclear scientists have been combating for years. People are exposed to ionizing radiation every day, mostly in the form of sunlight, with little negative effects. It is EXCESSIVE radiation exposure that is harmful... see the link between too much sun and skin cancer. Additionally, the model (Linear No-Threashold, or LNT) used to determine radiation risks to the public since the 1960's has long been called into question. Definitive evidence against it has come in the form of this paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4 published in the June issue of Biological Theory. Special exceptions for length and open access were even made for this article due to its groundbreaking coverage of LNT. Radiation isn't the scary animal it has long been made out to be.

    Second, "Yet what about those notorious safety risks? Nuclear energy may be green, but it is also more dangerous than, say, wind energy. ... Again, nobody in nuclear power is contesting that."

    As many others have pointed out, this is not necessarily the case. I would point not only to the, ExternE report, but also to the easy to read and well sourced article by James Conca: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#5becddc149d2

    Wind power accounts for 1000x more deaths than nuclear. We know the risks, and do a better job in the US than ANY other industry in mitigating these risks. Additionally, Chernobyl death tolls are estimated by the World Health Organization (in 2005: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/) to be at most 4000. This pales in comparison to other industrial disasters, such as the Bhopal disaster, which killed nearly twice that in DAYS.
  • Todd Millions on July 07 2016 said:
    I met Bill gates. Socially 6 months after microsoft was founded.
    I was impressed and followed his career with some interest
    over the next decade.
    A bit over a decade after that I was ready to kill him.
    More so now for further reasons sufficent unto themselves.
    This Horse S-ite being only one of them.
    The worst of it in his particular human case is-
    I know he knows better. He knows he knows better.
    Breeding tells?
    That could be it but I hope not-. Wifey?
    Or the same blackmailing(with malware as well)"security"that Tepco hired?
  • Russ on July 08 2016 said:
    "...Nuclear energy may be green, but it is also more dangerous than, say, wind energy...."

    Nuclear is by far, one of our safest sources. Google "Biodiversivist Nye Social Primate"

    Erica Gray and Robert Valiant on nuclear waste:

    "...Why don't the billionaires figure out what to do with the current hazardous for thousands of years nuclear waste first! ... is the author (some sort of enlightened elite, I imagine) not concerned about nuclear waste?..."

    The nuclear waste issue has quite effectively been blown way out of proportion by antinuclear groups. Google "Biodiversivist Making Mountains out of Mole Hills."
  • Henry on July 11 2016 said:
    The study cited for GHG of photovoltaics are from 2007 or earlier. My experience is that these studies cite even earlier studies. Often when tracing the references, most papers use original data going back to the late 1990's. There is a whole world of difference in GHG emissions from those early cells to modern cells - as demonstrated by a more than 10x drop in price and approximately 30% improvement in efficiency. A truly modern assessment is difficult since most large manufacturing companies keep this data proprietary.
  • Phil on July 20 2016 said:
    You got it half right. It will be Uranium for a transitional fuel. Thorium will take over though since it's cheaper and more plentiful and doesn't require enriching to use in a LFTR. http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/2012-what-is-a-lftr/
  • Robert Hawkins on July 20 2016 said:
    Nuclear... okay, but why uranium when we are so close to using other fuels such as Thorium?
  • John Stevenson on July 20 2016 said:
    Another fallacy of the STUPID Obama administration "global warming war".
    How in the WORLD can they allow fossil free nuclear plants to close?
    They should figure out how to make them affordable suppliers of electricity.
    What happens in 5, 10, 15 years when we burn through all the excess natural gas?
    #1, we will have used incredible amounts of that fossil fuel
    #2, it will be MORE expensive than nuclear!
    This is just typical of the Obama ADD afflicted administration - all talk, no solutions!
    I simply cannot believe the Dems especially do not rise up against these closings.
  • Jim on July 20 2016 said:
    "New and improved nuclear reactors?
    Why don't the billionaires figure out what to do with the current hazardous for thousands of years nuclear waste first!"
    After many years of research, the Nuclear waste depository was BUILT and readied for its' shipments, THEN HARRY REID, a DEM, blocked its' opening in his home state of Nevada.
    Yucca Mountain is the answer to your concern.
    So instead, nuclear waste is not stored in one central, protected and geologically safe location, it is instead stored at EACH of the over 100 nuclear plants throughout the US!
    Complain to Reid, not against your millionaires!
    Pull up Yucca Mountain in Wiki and read about it.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News