Nuclear energy stocks are publicly traded companies that develop, own, or manage nuclear power plants or the technology and equipment used in such plants.

This list was last updated on 2/10/2022.

If you know of any nuclear energy stock that is not listed here, but which should be, please let us know in the comments. Also for stocks in the list that you think should be removed.

The post List of Nuclear Energy Stocks appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

This list was last updated on 4/27/2022.

ETFs are Exchange-listed funds which pool investor’s money for the purpose of making Alternative Energy investments. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) track a specified Alternative Energy index. This list also includes closed-end mutual funds and other pooled investments which trade on exchanges.

ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES)
ASN Groenprojectenfonds (ASNGF.AS)
Bluefield Solar Income Fund (BSIF.L)
Defiance Next Gen H2 ETF (HDRO)
Evolve Funds Automobile Innovation Index ETF (CARS.TO)
First Trust Global Wind Energy Index (FAN)
First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index Fund (GRID)
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund  (QCLN)
Foresight Solar Fund Limited (FSFL.L)
Global X Lithium ETF (LIT)
Global X Uranium ETF (URA)
Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG), (formerly YLCO)
Greencoat Renewables Fund (GRP.IR)
Greencoat UK Wind PLC (UKW.L)
Harvest Clean Energy ETF (HCLN.TO)
Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF (PBD)
Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF (CUT)
Invesco Solar ETF (TAN)
Invesco Wilderhill Clean Energy (PBW)
iShares Global Timber & Forestry Index Fund (WOOD)
iShares Self-Driving EV and Tech ETF (IDRV)
iShares S&P Global Clean Energy Index ETF (ICLN)
iShares S&P Global Nuclear Energy Index (NUCL)
KraneShares Electric Vehicles and Future Mobility Index ETF (KARS)
KraneShares Global Carbon ETF (KRBN)
NextEnergy Solar Ord (NESF.L)
Pickens Morningstar® Renewable Energy Response ETF (RENW)
SPDR Kensho Clean Power ETF (XKCP)
The Renewables Infrastructure Group Limited (TRIG.L)
Triodos Groenfonds NV (TRIGF.AS)
VanEck Vectors Low Carbon Energy ETF (SMOG)
Van Eck Nuclear Energy ETF (NLR)
Van Eck Rare Earth/Strategic Metals ETF (REMX)

If you know of any alternative energy ETF or ETP that is not listed here, but which should be, please let us know in the comments.  Also for funds in the list that you think should be removed.

Thanks to Peter Smit for his extensive suggestions for updates to this list.

The post List of Alternative Energy and Clean Energy ETFs appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

Guest Author

Nuclear energy is not the “bad boy” it once was

For many years, nuclear energy was labelled as a potential threat to the environment as well as the global population.  Interestingly enough, the memories of the disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are now distant and the perspective of nuclear energy is changing in positive fashion.  The growing worries created by the ballooning demands on the world’s energy sources, an increase in the competition for energy supplies, rising concerns regarding global warming, and the volatility of the gas and oil prices are reasons that many countries are now re-thinking the nuclear energy proposition.

Why investing in nuclear stocks could be ecologically positive

Politicians and scientists around the world are now viewing nuclear energy as being eco-friendly as well as an economic and efficient solution to the Earth’s looming energy and environmental crisis that we are currently facing.  In so many words, investing in nuclear stocks is now an option that is back on the table and is being viewed as an ecologically positive investment.  Unlike fossil fuel combustion, nuclear energy does not leave a carbon footprint on the environment.  In other words, it does not produce the excessive amounts of carbon dioxide that fossil fuels do.

Nuclear stocks

Where stock trading is concerned, there are numerous reasons to consider investing in nuclear stocks and in the long run, there could be huge benefits, not only for the investors themselves, but the environment as well.  For instance, there is an abundant supply of uranium which as most people know is the primary basis of nuclear energy compared to so many other commodities.  The following are other reasons why investing in nuclear stocks is moving towards the forefront again:

• concerns over global warming
• erratic pricing of fossil fuels
• high-profile catastrophes related to coal and oil production
• surging demands for energy on a global scale

Environmental and political agendas are now pushing nuclear energy back towards the top of the list of priorities where the above are all concerned.

What are the moral benefits if any?

The moral benefits of investing in nuclear stocks are not necessarily based in financial gains as much as it relates to socially responsible investing overall.  As an alternative energy source and one that does not leave the carbon footprints on the environment that fossil fuels do, it is inevitable that investing in nuclear stocks could be beneficial.  Socially responsible investing describes the type of investment strategy that maximises both financial gains as well as the social good.  It is also referred to as ethical, socially conscious, or sustainable investing.

From the standpoint of being morally beneficial, that may still be up for speculation as nuclear energy is still not the preferred energy source that many environmentalists feel will solve the problems we are currently encountering in the global environment.  However, based on the above, we may not have any other viable alternative energy options to choose from other than the current ones – hydro, solar, and wind.  In so many words, nuclear energy and re-investing in it may benefit the Earth’s chances at survival.

The post Nuclear Stocks: Too Hot for an Eco Portfolio? appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

John Petersen

Mark Twain reportedly said that “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Truer words were never spoken.

On November 22nd the EPA issued an official fuel economy sticker for Nissan’s (NSANY.PK) Leaf that shows an impressive electric drive equivalence of 99 MPG. Two days later it issued an official fuel economy sticker for General Motor’s (GM) Volt that shows a comparable electric drive equivalence of 93 MPG, a gasoline drive fuel economy of 37 MPG and a combined equivalence of 60 MPG. Both stickers were heralded as the dawn of a new age in transportation. Unfortunately, they were outrageous lies that account for the distance a car can travel on a kilowatt-hour of electricity but ignore the energy needed to make a kilowatt-hour of electricity in the first place.

To arrive at their magical fuel economy numbers, the EPA started with the scientific fact that 1 kWh of electricity contains 3,412 BTUs of energy and 1 gallon of gasoline contains 124,238 BTUs. After calculating a base energy equivalence of 36.41 kWh per gallon, they adjusted that value to show a 7.5% energy loss in the battery and arrive at a final value of 33.7 kWh per gallon. In the words of autobloggreen “Since the Leaf has a 24 kWh battery pack and can go, officially, 73 miles, then, the EPA says, it could theoretically go 99 miles if it had a 33.7 kWh pack.”

Now let’s talk about what really happens.

To get a gallon of gasoline we have to drill a well, produce the oil, refine it and transport it to a gas pump near you. Overall, the production, transportation and refining consumes about 20% of the raw energy the crude oil contained at the wellhead. So if we back the entire process up to mother earth, each gallon of gasoline had an initial energy value 155,300 BTUs.

To get a kWh of electricity from sources other than water, wind and solar, we have to consume fuel to create heat in a generating plant and then turn that heat into electricity. The conversion process is very inefficient. According to the Energy Information Administration, it takes 10,378 BTUs of coal energy, 11,015 BTUs of petroleum energy, 8,305 BTUs of natural gas energy or 10,453 BTUs of nuclear energy to make 1 kWh of electricity. In other words, about 2/3 of the raw energy extracted from mother earth is wasted. If we include electricity from water, wind, solar and all other sources, the US consumed an average of 8,775 BTUs of raw energy last year for every kilowatt-hour of electricity it produced. By the time we account for transmission and distribution losses on the electric grid, the energy inputs for each kilowatt-hour of electricity delivered to a wall socket near you is about 9,375 BTUs.

When we track all the numbers back to mother earth, the energy equivalency ratio between gasoline in a car’s tank and electricity in an EVs battery is 16.6 kWh per gallon – not 33.7 kWh per gallon.

The EPA’s official sticker for Toyota’s (TM) venerable Prius shows a respectable combined fuel economy rating of 50 MPG. Since the Prius only burns gasoline but does so very efficiently, we have to extract 3,106 BTUs of energy from mother earth to move the Prius a mile. In comparison, we have to extract 3,388 BTUs of energy from mother earth to move the Leaf a mile and we have to extract a whopping 3,873 BTUs of energy to move the Volt a mile.

The bottom line is all the efficiency talk for plug-in vehicles is based on a fundamental deception that ignores the energy required to produce electricity in the first place, the same way it ignores the emissions impact of producing electricity. As a result, all of the arguments in favor of vehicle electrification have the intellectual integrity of a no peeing zone in a public swimming pool.

William Martin wrote that “In America we get up in the morning, we go to work and we solve our problems.” We don’t delude ourselves by creating a hall of mirrors where unconscionable waste can masquerade as conservation. We can do better, but not until we take our heads out of the sand and recognize the problems.

Disclosure: None.

The post Alice in EVland Part II; The Hall Of Mirrors appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.