Ways to Prevent Global Warming
What is the alternative? Move to the Arctic Circle, where you can enjoy some years with temperatures to 74 degrees Fahrenheit. According to results recently published in the journal Nature. About 55 million years ago, there was something called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). PETM in this phenomenon, the entire Earth is warmed by a gigantic release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Lovelock has insisted that we can see that kind of heat at the end of this century.
Now, another brilliant man, with whom we have many talks this year, has issued a 56 page report, entitled “Investment Implications of an abrupt climate change. “Co-written by Market Strategist Kevin Bambrough and Eric Sprott, CEO and Portfolio Manager of the world famous money management firm that bears his name, presented a convincing argument as to why and how global warming and climate change will dramatically impact our financial world. You are well read.
Make your choice: nuclear energy or Cheap Arctic Land
Besides optioning to buy large tracts of land near the Arctic Circle, as Dr. Lovelock conclusions require us to consider briefly what we can do to protect our finances? Global warming, climate change and an apocalypse before dawn on the horizon are probably too much reality for the here and now. But what will you do ten to thirty years from now? Last week, we interviewed Julian Steyn, author of a better tomorrow, which he co-wrote with U.S. Senator Pete Domenici. A conservative and rational man, even admitted in an email, “I am afraid that I agree with her (of Lovelock) concerns.”
If it is within the logic of statistical analysis presented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a rational mind want to start today to protect your finances to ensure the future survival of his family and lineage. Dear scientists have chosen their way through mountains of statistics, graphs and projections about what is happening with melting glaciers, rising temperatures, rising sea levels and so on. They do not like what they see, they are not alone, and the best minds are not endorsing wind farms or solar panels, as the solution. ” They believe that nuclear fission reactors as mandatory, and these are faster online, the less we will have to sweat later (literally).
Eric Sprott and Kevin Bambrough have a possible solution, a convincing argument why we should not fool around now. Do not write the report to alarm and cajole to lynch the next environmentalist or anti-Nuke is which. Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough provided a blueprint of what should be done by governments and decision makers. More importantly, they have given us very provocative tips on how to protect our finances during the crisis brewing.
Remember, not just some meteor hitting the earth (though this may happen, too). Global warming is equivalent to the boiling water on your stove. First, it is heated and then warmer and warmer. Finally, it gets hot. Then the water boils. In other words, the catastrophe of beer for a while, causing political and economic instability, and a host of other ills, probably best described in biblical terms. Most of us, unfortunately, will wait until the next Hurricane Katrina is a few miles down the road before waking.
Through the first half of the report, the authors cover global warming and climate change in almost every way imaginable. Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough find nooks and crannies that may alarm you. Did you know that the world’s largest aquifer, the Ogallala aquifer in the United States, is drying up due to the glaciers, which created this aquifer, are receding? Fresh water is already in short supply one third of the world’s population. We may be surrounded by water, but could lack a glass of cool water to drink. Ask why the Saudis are building desalination plants as fast as they can. Imagine if the dry conditions prevailed through more than 90 percent of the earth’s surface.
What happens when the Earth’s temperature rises? Increasing urbanization, rising GDP and the demand for all the subtleties that come with “civilization” has a price: more CO2 emissions. Mortal CO2 emissions, which raise the temperature of the earth, our air and poison kills our plants (and us), it is very likely to turn this land into a potboiler before the end of the century. Expansion
need more nuclear uranium
“This is the perfect storm,” said Kevin Bambrough, not as the cliché has been abused into the term, but as an angry voice demanding decision-makers take seriously the gravity of CO2 emissions. “We need more nuclear reactors,” he said. Environmentalist Patrick Moore wrote to the U.S. should invest its energy source of a mixture of 80 percent dependence on fossil fuels, which relies on nuclear power instead of 60 percent of our electricity supply.
former Greenpeace co-founder of the scenario, Bambrough extrapolated the World Nuclear Association (WNA) projections for 2030. Nuclear energy demand is projected to rise from the current 368 GW produced by 441 nuclear reactors worldwide. , Using the premise of Moore’s 60 percent reliance on nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors that produce 18,900 Twh the total energy demand in 2030, the WNA estimates could reach 31,500 TWh. Much more than to produce electricity, Bambrough calculated that in 2030, nearly 2700 nuclear reactors are required worldwide. In considering the “potential” of a 600 percent increase in nuclear reactors online, about 25 years from now, Bambrough also calculated how much uranium would be needed to fuel reactors. According
Bambrough, current global uranium mining production lies in the £ 100 million level. In 2030, nuclear energy expands as Moore insists it should, then the world will require utilities in the order of about 1.3 billion pounds each year. With regard to a combination of global nuclear energy, Bambrough wrote, “The supply of uranium could be the limiting factor anymore.”
This may be the case during a rally at the site of the uranium price. Bambrough wrote, “much higher uranium prices will be necessary to attract capital investment to meet demand growth.” This has already begun, as uranium prices have skyrocketed in the past six years. A long-term uranium recently traded as high as $ 46/pound, exponentially higher than the price of $ 6.40/pound in late 2000. Bambrough is correct in its conclusion. The construction of an underground uranium mine costs much more than they did in the glory days of uranium in the 1950s. Environmental regulations force miners to spend more and take more time in the construction of any uranium production facility, including a COL.
“Marginal mines will be the pricing,” wrote Bambrough. This helps explain why the Sprott Asset Management funds have invested heavily in companies such as Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF), Energy Metals (TSX: EMC) and others. The first time I met with Strathmore Minerals Executive Director, Development Randhawa, in June 2004, said his strategy was to build a reunion held at the price of uranium through the acquisition of properties that were profitable in the sub-$ 20 / level. His strategy has rewarded shareholders and continued to do so with each uptick in the spot uranium price. Bambrough If the conclusion is correct, young developers of uranium could very well become the Internet high-fliers. This conclusion was reached by the writer James boletim dinner last November, and repeated numerous times in several reports by others.
“Great low-cost producers may be able to reap the Middle East as oil profits for decades,” wrote Bambrough. If the difference between production costs and maintains the in situ expansion of uranium, the uranium will hit small businesses is great. These companies, which postponed uranium mining, will be selling their uranium production at the rate of profits to the production or dissemination of ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil now enjoy.
Rising uranium prices are probably more of an irritation of the merchants of fuel utilities, who are concerned about construction costs. The actual cost of fuel to operate a nuclear power plant on the borders of the absurd. Bambrough wrote in his report, “the cost of fuel (nuclear) are only 4.5 percent of total costs, even with uranium at $ 40 per lb. If uranium rises to $ 100 per pound (150 percent increase), the cost of nuclear energy will only increase by about 6.75 percent. “The fuel costs of coal and gas are 35 and 73 percent respectively. And massive doses of CO2 released into the air.
What else can you do apart from around the world, the unanimous adoption of nuclear power? There may be difficulties ahead. Lovelock told us the problem of CO2 emissions should have been addressed 50 years ago. It takes between 50 and 100 years for one cycle to the atmosphere through emissions.
The Sprott report co-authors concluded that there will be problems in supplying food, water and energy. Problems are expected with the national security, rising grain prices, and investments needed to provide water and energy to those who are not buried ten feet deep in his debt. It is expected a drop in the currency the central banks flood the money system to provide liquidity. And, of course, gold will resume the role it has always had too long of economic calamity.
Is this too much reality for you? Should we wait a while and see what effect? We might not be so lucky. Some experts, such as Chief Claims Strategist of Swiss Re, wrote in a March 2006 CERES report, “Global warming has accelerated from a problem that could affect our grandchildren, to one that could alter the social conditions and economic life. ”
In other words, Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough is correct in its assumptions and conclusions. The time to move is now, not thirty years from now.
For a second opinion before completing this column, we forwarded the Sprott report to David Miller. Takes many hats, including a consultant to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the third-term Wyoming legislator, president of Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM) and a walking encyclopedia on uranium, geology, nuclear power and politics. He replied bluntly, “The fuel of the 19th century was coal. The fuel of the 20th century was oil. Both have run their course economically. Uranium is on its way to becoming the energy fuel of the 21st century. The crescendo of the countries clamoring for nuclear power has grown stronger each year of this new millennium. “Perhaps we can still see the energy mix Moore come to pass, or at least dramatic growth in the nuclear sector to more closely oriented percent level.
A key question remains unanswered, during our period of two years research on uranium and nuclear energy. Of course, we received a lot of answers, but remain unconvinced. No one has a satisfactory answer to this question: “Will there be sufficient supply of uranium mines and mining output current available to the world’s nuclear reactors to meet the anticipated global demand for electricity? “The word-break in the previous question is” available “. Uranium is everywhere. There are about 1.7 billion pounds of uranium mines in the world of inventories. But will there be enough uranium available to the utilities when the time comes?
If there is, today the spot price of uranium could be comparable to the price of gasoline, about 1965, at some future point.