SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (144551)12/10/2018 7:41:37 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 218255
 
interesting dilemma, nuclear power, trump's export ban of goodies to china

in any case, in a year of essentially dueed (dollar up everything else down), my cameco is up and is staying up



nationalinterest.org

Is U.S. Confrontation with China Threatening U.S. Nuclear Competitiveness?The United States has created neither the market conditions nor the regulatory environment to maintain U.S. global nuclear leadership.

The Trump administration may be undermining one of its top energy and national security priorities—civilian nuclear power—by putting it in the crossfire of its current confrontation with China while not creating a conducive economic and regulatory environment for nuclear power at home.

U.S. global leadership in civilian nuclear power is crucial for advancing a number of national security goals, including ensuring adherence to the non-proliferation regime and maintaining the technological superiority of our armed forces. The Trump administration’s announcement in October to significantly limit nuclear exports to China—particularly next-generation technologies—recognizes that nuclear energy has a strategic and national security value, but that decision creates complications.

U.S. nuclear power is in decline while China and Russia are ramping up—and subsidizing—their industries. A policy that limits our struggling nuclear industry’s access to the fastest-growing nuclear power market in the world is only half a policy if it does not simultaneously support advanced nuclear technologies here in the United States. At present, U.S. policy cuts the industry off at the knees, effectively weakening our national security posture against a range of complex threats. Further, by restricting nuclear cooperation, the new regulations put additional limits on our ability to influence the future safety and security culture of the Chinese nuclear industry.

There is no question that Donald Trump’s complaints about China are on target. The cutoff of nuclear exports is just one element in the Trump administration’s dispute with China on a range of problematic behaviors including mercantilist trade policies, IP theft, cyber malfeasance and aggressive activities in the South China Sea. Particularly salient is the indictment against China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) for conspiring to steal U.S. nuclear technology.

But as the success of U.S. nuclear firms such as Westinghouse and its state of the art AP1000 reactor in China suggest , nuclear commerce with China can work in some circumstances.

The administration’s new regulations allow continued export of the AP1000, of which three of four Chinese plants have come online, and common nuclear components that are readily available from multiple sources. The regulations, however, restrict the transfer of any advanced nuclear technologies—including so-called Generation IV technologies and small modular reactors—which promise to be the industry’s future. This technology is not applicable to nuclear weapons—where China is already self-sufficient—but instead is potentially applicable to naval propulsion systems, floating power plants and a host of new applications in a growing global market for nuclear power.

In a world where the risk of great power conflict is returning, the administration is justified in ensuring U.S. industry does not support a potential adversary. It is fair to ask why U.S. nuclear companies need to work in China at all. There are two main drivers: First, China has the largest market for nuclear technology. Second, it has a conducive regulatory environment for developing new technologies—obviously benefitted by a national decision to make its nuclear industry a strategic priority.

Comparatively, the United States has created neither the market conditions nor the regulatory environment to maintain U.S. global nuclear leadership. There is only one American-designed nuclear power plant under construction outside the United States, while China and Russia are supplying about two-thirds of the international market. Domestically, the United States has not broken ground on new reactors since 2013 . Two of those four reactors—all AP1000s like those already operational in China—have since been abandoned and the other two have struggled with significant delays and large cost overruns. Twelve U.S. reactors are scheduled to close early over the next ten years.

With limited electricity demand growth and cheap, plentiful natural gas and increasingly competitive renewables, the market in the United States for new nuclear reactors is almost non-existent. This situation could change in the 2030s when a number of reactors are scheduled to close and new technologies will likely be commercially ready, but the industry needs to last that long to take advantage of the opportunity.

On the regulatory side, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) permitting processes are primarily designed for older, large, light water reactors. While the NRC has been updating to regulate IV nuclear technologies and recent advances in small modular reactors show progress towards modernization, some innovators have felt compelled to look outside the United States for commercialization opportunities.

Before the ban was announced on October 11, multiple U.S. nuclear companies working on advanced nuclear technologies had Department of Energy authorization for projects in China, including construction and testing of new reactors. Total losses under the new regulations are expected to run into the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

An administration official conceded that the restrictions could hurt the industry, noting , “We understand the US industry may suffer in the short term … we believe that in the long term this policy will benefit” the industry. However, to paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, in the long run, without a market for its technologies, the U.S. industry might be dead.

As our colleague Robert Ichord has argued , the United States should manage the nuclear industry as a strategic asset because of the significant national security and clean energy benefits.

To ensure U.S. nuclear power leadership, the United States must develop the other half of its policy to confront the Chinese challenge by creating alternate growth opportunities at home and abroad. The recently signed Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA) is the first part of a long-term strategy for moving toward advanced nuclear reactors and supporting capacities. But a more serious approach would be to formally acknowledge the domestic industry as a national security asset and provide support, including ensuring the survival of the existing fleet, increasing funding for the development of new projects, and providing more support for testing and demonstration of new technologies.

Meanwhile, international cooperation with China is still in our best interest. Through cooperation and technology sales, the U.S. imparts its top-notch nonproliferation and safety culture everywhere it works. Limiting ties with China and cutting all ties with CGN doesn’t just limit our influence in China’s growing nuclear culture, but also well beyond, as CGN has growing global contracts in many countries.

At his meeting with Trump at the G20, Xi Jinping promised new protections for intellectual property and an end to coerced tech transfer. This is essential for U.S.-China trade, and nuclear should be included. Given that the Chinese are already developing a number of Generation IV technologies, the administration should put an emphasis on nuclear trade with enforceable and reciprocal terms that safeguard intellectual property and punish cheating with stiff penalties. Additionally, the administration should consider a whole-of-government effort to encourage foreign nuclear sales more broadly along the lines of the Foreign Military Sales program.

Ultimately, the Chinese will have an advanced nuclear power sector with or without us. To have a healthy nuclear industry, however, we must come to terms with the realities of the global market and make a commitment to nuclear power at the highest levels of government.

Randolph Bell is the director of the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center. Follow the Global Energy Center on Twitter @ACGlobalEnergy.

Robert A. Manning is a senior fellow in the Brent Scowcroft Center for Security and Strategy. Follow Robert on Twitter @RManning4.

Image: Reuters.




To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (144551)12/11/2018 6:41:34 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 218255
 
the year 2018 passing quickly

for the christmas holiday season we shall make home in a factory in china as opposed to the traditional thailand beach bungalow excursion. time to toughen up the kids and face their northern strategic competitors.

the kids are of course excited by the prospect of end of semester, and anticipating their first high-speed rail travel (the hong kong station just recently opened)

the coconut intends to apply what she studied in school, rock climb but up a true limestone mountain and the jack says he will simply watch



i shall likely do usual, workation, at reduced pace, imbibe hot chocolate, and try to figure out approach to 2019

shall also watch progress of chang'e 4 and hope the best for the lander / rover make progress of a program, interim stop the dark side of the moon ... to me it seems a bit like remote surgery via internet




To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (144551)12/16/2018 2:53:00 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218255
 
The below described state may make decisioning easy but operationally not too helpful

Basically telling us to bide time, mill around, and wait.

Am hoping that the trump will bring down the house

nytimes.com

Investors Have Nowhere to Hide as Stocks, Bonds and Commodities All Tumble
Dec. 15, 2018

On the New York Stock Exchange, as at other exchanges around the world, shares have been pummeled.Mark Lennihan/Associated Press


On the New York Stock Exchange, as at other exchanges around the world, shares have been pummeled.Mark Lennihan/Associated Press

Stocks? Messy. Bonds? Meh. Commodities? Not pretty.

Most years, financial markets are a mixed bag. A bad year for risky investments, like stocks, might be a great one for safe bets like government bonds. Or, if worries about inflation are hurting bond investments, commodities like gold tend to do well.

Not this year.

For the first time in decades, every major type of investment has fared poorly, as the outlook for economic growth and corporate profits is dampened by rising trade tensions and interest rates. Stocks around the world are getting pummeled, while commodities and bonds are tumbling — all of which have left investors with few places to put their money.

If this persists, or grows worse, it could create a damaging feedback loop, with doubts about the economy hurting the markets, and trouble in the markets undermining growth.

Pessimism emanating from the stock market could leave consumers and businesses scared to spend. The rout in junk bonds makes it more expensive for financially fragile businesses to borrow. The collapse in crude oil prices discourages new investment and hiring in the oil patch, which has been a source of job growth.

In that sense, the markets are both a gauge of what investors expect to happen in the economy, and a potential catalyst for their decisions. The mood in the financial markets ultimately feeds into spending by companies and consumers, and if they pull back, based on panicky ups and downs, growth could suffer.

“People look to the financial markets as a source of information, as a signal, about what’s going to happen and what’s going to come,” said Itay Goldstein, finance professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. “And when they see markets going down, they start thinking pessimistically about the outlook for the real economy.”

[Read more: Stocks across Wall Street are enduring one of the most prolonged periods of volatility of the past decade.]

There’s scant evidence that the worst-case scenario will play out. The American economy remains strong: Unemployment is near 50-year lows, and growth is steady. And it wasn’t that long ago that financial markets were feeling good about the global economy, shrugging off troublesome issues like the trade war, Britain’s exit from the European Union and the debt levels of developing nations.

On Sept. 20, stock investors in the United States were sitting on a nearly 10 percent gain for the year. Benchmark American crude oil prices were up more than 20 percent. The tech-heavy Nasdaq composite index was up more than 15 percent.

But those profits are gone.

Since October, an index of commodities that includes oil and copper has swung from gains of 20 percent to losses for the year. A similar move took place in risky corporate bonds. So far this year, after another steep drop on Friday, the S&P 500-stock index is down about 2.8 percent.

[Read more: The stock market has wiped out its 2018 gains. There have been several moments like this in the last decade.]

“In a typical year there’s going to be some winners and losers,” said Ed Clissold, chief United States strategist at the equity market research firm Ned Davis Research. “It’s very rare that you get nothing working.”

His firm recently looked at eight types of investments going back to 1972. In every year, at least one of these categories generated a return of 5 percent or more. A separate study by JPMorgan Chase analysts found that “2018 has delivered losses on almost every asset class and investing style.”

The widespread market jitters have accompanied a tectonic shift in the investing world, as central banks have begun to withdraw the extraordinary support provided to the global economy in response to the financial crisis a decade ago.

For nearly seven years, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates near zero and bought trillions of dollars’ worth of government bonds, which pushed interest rates — that move in the opposite direction of prices — sharply lower. Money in the bank earned next to nothing, so investors eagerly bought anything they expected to generate some kind of return: risky debt, real estate, stocks, technology start-ups.

The Fed’s support, bolstered by similar efforts from the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank, proved to be a huge tailwind for global financial markets. Everything seemingly moved up in tandem.

Now the opposite appears to be unfolding, as the Fed pulls back. The American central bank has raised interest rates eight times since December 2015, and is expected to do so again this coming week. This year alone, it has shrunk its stockpile of bonds by roughly $370 billion. On Thursday, the European Central Bank said it was ending its crisis intervention, called quantitative easing.

“What was once a tailwind is now a headwind for markets,” said Dan Ivascyn, group chief investment officer at Pimco, a bond investment firm with $1.7 trillion under management, in Newport Beach, Calif.

At least on the margins, the turmoil in the financial markets is already reverberating in the real economy.

For instance, as Treasury bond prices have declined this year, interest rates — which move in the opposite direction — have risen.

Those Treasury yields serve as the basis for a range of consumer borrowing rates, such as on mortgages. With the 30-year fixed mortgage rate rising above 5 percent this year, activity in the housing market has slumped, sending the stock prices of homebuilders sharply lower. The S&P 1500 index of home building stocks is down more than 30 percent this year.

In recent weeks, the broad investment declines have worsened while anxiety grows over the trade war between the United States and China. This fight, between the world’s two largest economies, may already be dragging on global growth.

Economic data this month showed that Chinese trade slowed sharply in November, with imports of key metals such as copper and iron ore declining from the same month last year. On Friday, Chinese officials reported weak growth in monthly retail sales and industrial production. The numbers point to a deepening slowdown for the industrial heart of the world’s No. 2 economy. Weak demand from China has roiled commodities, which are on track for their worst year since 2015.

The experience of 2015 could be a useful road map for investors. That year was uncomfortable as the Federal Reserve planned to raise interest rates against a backdrop of soft global growth. Stocks, corporate bonds and commodities all fell, while Treasury bonds eked out a minuscule gain.

In the midst of the market turmoil, the Federal Reserve slowed down the pace of its interest rate increases. And the pause from the central bank reinvigorated risk-taking among investors, with the S&P 500 rising 9.5 percent the next year, and the economy continuing to grow.

That’s all to say, investors can be quick to jump to conclusions. But they can also be wrong.

“They’re like people reading a book,” said Jurrien Timmer, director of global macro at the asset manager Fidelity Investments in Boston. “But they’re going to skip five chapters to see how the book ends.”