# Uranium resurgence



## prs

Is it my imagination or is Uranium quietly making a resurgance. Seems there is becoming a greater demand for the resource and there is a bit of a spike in the cost price of the commodity. Anyone with any thoughts?


----------



## DB008

*Re: Uranium resurgance*

My thoughts, YES.

Have a look in the Commodities thread and look for the Uranium and Thorium threads. There is a fair amount of info on Uranium so you should be able to get a better understanding of what people on this board are thinking.

Happy trading


----------



## DB008

Actually, you already asked this question on 4th-December-2007, 08:47 PM 
You started a thread titled, "Uranium Sector"

Here it is, in case you forgot what you wrote;
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9087


----------



## prs

You are correct DannyBoy but I am encouraged by the movement in MTN share pricing and some others in U308 and wondered whether some out there were aware of something that is prompting a sudden rise in SP


----------



## Southern X

I'm looking at a commodity price at U$52.00, up U$2.75 over the past week. From a technical perspective the chart has put in a clear bottom. 

First, who is buying? Could a significant number of purchases be from hedgies; you remember what did last time, ie drive the price into the sky, then bail. Well for them they've got a long way up to go to realize BIG profits. So the spot price is very cheap for now.

Second, as Buffet is fond of saying, "be buyin' while others are cryin'". This sector was truly HAMMERED. So I dipped my toe in the water with a WA near term producer, Mega Uranium, MGA:TSX. 

I'm looking to increase my exposure in this space. To that end if anyone has "real" thoughts on either ASX or TSX explorecos, near term producers, or new producers eg. WCU:ASX/WU:TSX-V(?), let's talk.

My stocks owned are: MGA, NTU. BMN:ASX, is a pricey producer but may be a winner; EXT is solid. What about MRU, TOE, DYL...etc.

Thanks. Now let's make MONEY!

SX


----------



## barney

Southern X said:


> I'm looking at a commodity price at U$52.00, up U$2.75 over the past week. From a technical perspective the chart has put in a clear bottom.
> 
> I'm looking to increase my exposure in this space. To that end if anyone has "real" thoughts on either ASX or TSX explorecos, near term producers, or new producers eg. WCU:ASX/WU:TSX-V(?), let's talk.
> 
> My stocks owned are: MGA, NTU. BMN:ASX, is a pricey producer but may be a winner; EXT is solid. What about MRU, TOE, DYL...etc.
> 
> Thanks. Now let's make MONEY!
> 
> SX




Howdy SX .... Have you put your microscope over PEN lately? Might be worth a look


----------



## Southern X

Thanks Barney, will do over next week. Als will be looking at RSC:TSX, Strateco.

This though, is exactly what I'm talking about. To wit: some months ago PEN popped onto my radar. I can't even remember why, and soon after forgot about it. (I was busy in the REE and Au plays.) This was a space, Ux, I prowled about in during the pre-bubble bursting days. I see the potential here, and I WILL NOT be a bag-holder this time!! (The tax-loss selling was mitigated by a big swig of very good wine with each click of the sell button.)

There are gems in this sector, holders of PDN and ERA need not post. (I would only consider them if my strategy were to employ a barbell approach, ie/eg. PDN or ERA on one side -- moderate growth/safety -- and explorecos on the other -- DANGER/REWARD).

Let's make Mo' Money!

SX


----------



## Southern X

Further to PEN....

Their audio broadcast points directly to a capital raising. To me this, at this point, may be pointing directly to a buying opportunity of a near term producer. Needs more research though.

SX


----------



## DB008

I got in on DYL, PDX and UXA about 2 weeks ago. 

ERA is also another one. l hold RIO, which owns ~61% of ERA. 

I have posted in another thread that l believe that the big U will be in demand as China is building more U-Power plants.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801051.html


> "Under plans already announced, China intends to spend $50 billion to build 32 nuclear plants by 2020. Some analysts say the country will build 300 more by the middle of the century"





More info here too.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html


Judging by the above report, it is clear that there will be a huge Uranium demand.


----------



## barney

Southern X said:


> Further to PEN....
> 
> Their audio broadcast points directly to a capital raising. To me this, at this point, may be pointing directly to a buying opportunity of a near term producer. Needs more research though.
> 
> SX




SX, 

PEN have already completed their recent capital raise. (PENOC options). The recent appointment of Rockbury Capital is to source a debt funding arrangement for the upcoming mine to be built in Wyoming.

The latest Hartley Report will give the best quick rundown on the companies potential ...... once the mine permit goes through, the instos will start to get interested in PEN, and the share price could see an exponential re-rating imo.

ps I hold so I am obviously biased 

http://www.peninsulaminerals.com.au/images/peninsul-134--aixoo.pdf


----------



## DB008

There is an article in the Financial Review this weekend (13/11/10), on the back page about Uranium. Interesting. Very bullish outlook!

It goes on to say that while almost all other commodities have risen "significantly", Uranium has been sluggish this year. 
There are also some 400 'odd Uranium Power Plants world-wide with another 40 marked for construction.  

Companies mentioned were BHP, RIO, PDN.


Happy trading


----------



## Southern X

I've freed up cash (thanks LYC, ARU, ALK) over last month for Au, Ag (don't know a superb, eg. BCM:TSX-V, ASX play), and Ux. 

Barney shared a great pick (PEN), but I missed it for various reasons: thought they needed money: I've haven't got a clue about how to trade equities under $0.10, and; they have a $0.09 target.

My list of Ux has been whittled down to: DYL, WCU (they too need money), MRU (anyone know of another Tanzanian play?), and TOE. Not pursuing BMN (great land position around PDN, but the cost of extraction??), and AGS (legal issues, but worth the Au punt?).

Hopefully my decision is settled while the market's pounding most everything because Ux might go nuts again and I want to buy this dip.

SX


----------



## DB008

I found this site and it seems very useful
http://www.australianuranium.com.au/uranium-stocks.html

Interestingly, RIO owns 68.4% of ERA


----------



## Southern X

RIO's position in ERA takes ERA it out any takeover premium. 

I would only invest in ERA or PDN from a barbell strategy. In short, I believe Ux has definitely bottomed. To play it safe, but still take on risk, in an upward moving commodity, I'll buy heavyweight PDN/ERA, and on the other side a risky exploreco or two. Therefore if I'm wrong on the exploreco side the big fellas will cushion/hedge my loss. IF, IF I'm right then small % gains on the ERA/PDN side while large % gains on the risk side.

MRU might've been the Tanzanian play I was hunting for, but in hunting their may be others?? Thanks Dannyboy.

SX


----------



## Verve

Hmmm. Not sure about ERA.  Bought in May, and then reports came through of the Ranger Uranium mine coming to the end of its useful life.  It's been around for 34 years.  I think that any SP rises these days is fairly superficial, i.e. not born of any great productive outcome.  Anyway, we sold in October at very small loss, and put funds to better buys, and already have made up for the losses and more.


----------



## tronic72

*Chinese CLAIM to have developed technology to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.*

This article explains why the the Spot Price of Uranium actually went up, instead of down as one who think.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/01/05/china-nuclear-claim-no-piece-of-yellow-cake/

Bottom line is the Chinese would love us to think they don't really need all those reserves they are busily buying before the 2013 Russian Nuke Deadline.

Interesting.


----------



## tronic72

*Uranium prices continue to increase....*

"Uranium prices surged 5.6% in the past week...."


As per link http://www.financialpost.com/news/Uranium+surges+potential+shortfalls/4090731/story.html


----------



## tronic72

*Re: Uranium prices continue to increase....*



tronic72 said:


> "Uranium prices surged 5.6% in the past week...."
> 
> 
> As per link http://www.financialpost.com/news/Uranium+surges+potential+shortfalls/4090731/story.html




Up further again to $66 from $62.


----------



## enigmatic

I have been watching Uranium for a couple of months now and have been impressed by the rapid increase in price now up to 70$/lb 
could be a good time to take a punt on a Uranium Junior.


----------



## barney

enigmatic said:


> could be a good time to take a punt on a Uranium Junior.





That brings us back to PEN  ....... possibly the best U junior anyone will find at the present moment ...

Currently in a consolidation phase after a stellar rise of late ........ Anyone able to pick up some stock at the 10-10.5 cent level while the short termers are cashing out may be well rewarded over the next couple of years !!  

ps ... I hold ... I am biased  ..... but this one has the making of a serious player of the future.


----------



## enigmatic

Well the Uranium price continues to climb to $US73 I've been focusing on WCU as they are a current producer and should gain from the climb in Uranium price.

Looking forward to more growth in Uranium


----------



## Sean K

I think uranium will just bubble and pop for the immediate future depending on geopolitics and global economics. So much is dependant on uncertainty....


----------



## enigmatic

Nothing wrong with a bubble and pop although we aren't certain it will pop anytime soon. 2013 is just arround the corner and demand for uranium although will not rapidly increase supply will decrease significantly, is there enough increase in supply over the next few years to cover this drop in supply


----------



## mr. jeff

I would like to propose that anyone who is interested in uranium and its case for ongoing use may help me dig around for some unloved Ux stocks at the moment in anticipation of renewed institutional interest. If you have any stocks that you follow/have followed and believe they are worth discussing then please get them out for an airing. 

I have looked briefly at USA, (PEN is one we all know a little of), DYL, ERA. Know nothing about PDN or Toro. If anyone is interested then start talking! Anyone know anything about Summit?


----------



## Starcraftmazter

mr. jeff said:


> I would like to propose that anyone who is interested in uranium and its case for ongoing use may help me dig around for some unloved Ux stocks at the moment in anticipation of renewed institutional interest. If you have any stocks that you follow/have followed and believe they are worth discussing then please get them out for an airing.
> 
> I have looked briefly at USA, (PEN is one we all know a little of), DYL, ERA. Know nothing about PDN or Toro. If anyone is interested then start talking! Anyone know anything about Summit?




PDN and ARU are my favorites. PDN because it's a solid company with more operating coming online in the next 1-2 years, and ARU because they are also moving into rare earths.

My perspective if quite limited though, especially on ARU I haven't done a lot of research just yet.


----------



## mr. jeff

Thanks for that,

I see today that ARU has been sold down substantially due to revising their BFS on their rare earths. Obviously not a popular move, an extension of 9-12 months don't know what the ramifications will be.

PDN up 8% today, coverage in the Fin Review mentioning possible takeover interest, perhaps there is something to this, mention of Noble Group in the street talk article. May be worth a further look.

Will have a look into Toro shortly.


----------



## Knobby22

Tim Colebatch in today's Age states that China has 9 pilot programs for emission trading.

Of course they lead the world in cheap solar thanks to technology developed by the University of NSW but they also appear to have perfected a way to make nuclear power stations cheaper with plans to increase nuclear capacity to 400 Gigawatts, more than the entire global capacity today.

This will mean real opportunities in this industry imo.


----------



## drillinto

>>> Uranium Prices Finding a Bottom <<<

Source: http://commodityhq.com/2013/uranium-prices-finding-a-bottom/#more-11982
*****


----------



## MARKETWINNER

World uranium demand is forecast to increase over the next decade, according to the World Nuclear Association. In the short run there will be volatility or prices may come down. There are some developments in Japan on nuclear reactors.

I think Germany's coalition government announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022.

My ideas are not a recommendation to either buy or sell any security,commodity or currency. Please do your own research prior to making any investment decisions.


----------



## pixel

In case anybody is interested in U-spot: Kcast from Kitco has added Base Metals to its menu.
Charts on offer include Al, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn and Uranium.


----------



## orr

There's an up coming Royal Commission to be held in South Australia into Australia's nuclear future.

The ABC's Radio National science arm, have started what appears to be a longer term public education campaign to raise general knowledge on the subject. The latest piece aired is a talk on Ockham's Razor. The concept outlined if feasible is inspiring.

_'Dr Oscar Archer from Adelaide argues that Australia needs a new, clean and economical form of power and suggests that we need a revolutionary way of providing energy. He proposes that Australia establishes the world's first multinational repository for nuclear waste and tells us how we can generate power by using that waste.'_

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/energy-and-nuclear-power/6261352


----------



## Value Collector

I wouldn't hold my breath, I don't think we will have a nuclear power plant in the next 50 years. Way to many nimby's.

On the subject of Uranium price, has anyone done any calculations as to how much an impact there would be if the USA started reprocessing their waste on a large scale.

I see the USA stockpiles of spent rods as a potentially very large source of future supply, they have enough spent fuel rods to take them out of themselves out of the market for 25 years or more if they started reprocessing, on a large scale, and if the next generations of breeder reactors start coming online, their waste fuel would be enough to take them out of the market permanently.


----------



## Pnut

orr said:


> He proposes that Australia establishes the world's first multinational repository for nuclear waste and tells us how we can generate power by using that waste.'[/I]
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/energy-and-nuclear-power/6261352




This would be clinical insanity. If Australia Gov allowed spent fuel to come here. Fukishima has probably put the death knock on U3O8. Which is good thing when you look at the damage caused to all the sea lions and fish etc in west USA at the moment and over the next 5 years of decommissioning of reactor number 4. Vast areas of barren /dead ocean are being noticed on route to Japan. Some parts of ocean floor said to be covered in dead fish. Thousands of starving sea lions on beaches of USA. That could become a significant break in the food chain.

I would be interested in company's that can clean up nuclear waste and turn it back into something biodegradable at the power plant. That is where the big money is to be made. 

My thoughts Pnut.


----------



## Value Collector

Pnut said:


> Which is good thing when you look at the damage caused to all the sea lions and fish etc in west USA at the moment and over the next 5 years of decommissioning of reactor number 4. Vast areas of barren /dead ocean are being noticed on route to Japan. Some parts of ocean floor said to be covered in dead fish. Thousands of starving sea lions on beaches of USA. That could become a significant break in the food chain.




I think you need to stop getting your news from conspiracy websites.


----------



## pixel

ERA announced today it won't proceed with Ranger 3:
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=01632637

RIO's reply sounds even more "terminal":


> Energy Resources of Australia Ltd - Ranger 3 Deeps Project Update
> 11 June 2015
> Rio Tinto acknowledges Energy Resources of Australia Ltd’s (ERA) release to the Australian Securities Exchange on 11 June 2015, in which it announced it has decided it would not proceed with the Final Feasibility Study of the Ranger 3 Deeps project in the current operating environment.
> Rio Tinto agrees with the decision not to progress the study. After careful consideration, Rio Tinto has determined that it does not support any further study or the future development of Ranger 3 Deeps due to the project’s economic challenges.
> Rio Tinto recognises the importance of ongoing rehabilitation work at the Ranger mine site, which is surrounded by the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park. Rio Tinto is engaged with ERA on a conditional credit facility to assist ERA to fund its rehabilitation program, should additional funding be required beyond ERA’s existing cash reserves and the future earnings from processing ore stockpiles.
> Rio Tinto is assessing a potential non-cash impairment charge of approximately US$300 million* (post tax) relating to its shareholding in ERA.



However, demand for reactor fuel is unlikely to drop to zero any time soon, which should offer increased sales opportunities for other U-miners.
Looking at PDN's chart, it seems I'm not alone with that opinion.

Disclosure: I hold PDN and TOE


----------



## Value Collector

pixel said:


> However, demand for reactor fuel is unlikely to drop to zero any time soon, which should offer increased sales opportunities for other U-miners.




What do you think about what I wrote earlier in regards to future uranium supply?



> I see the USA stockpiles of spent rods as a potentially very large source of future supply, they have enough spent fuel rods to take themselves out of the market for 25 years or more if they started reprocessing, on a large scale, and if the next generations of breeder reactors start coming online, their waste fuel would be enough to take them out of the market permanently.




reprocessing spent fuel rods is a good source of new fuel rods, countries like France, Japan and china all do it. The USA have not ever done this though, so they have a huge amount of feedstock should they decide to start reprocessing, which I see as inevitable considering the size of their stockpiles. 

Not only would it likely take the USA out of the market, But they could become a large supplier of fuel rods.


----------



## pixel

Value Collector said:


> What do you think about what I wrote earlier in regards to future uranium supply?
> 
> reprocessing spent fuel rods is a good source of new fuel rods, countries like France, Japan and china all do it. The USA have not ever done this though, so they have a huge amount of feedstock should they decide to start reprocessing, which I see as inevitable considering the size of their stockpiles.
> 
> Not only would it likely take the USA out of the market, But they could become a large supplier of fuel rods.




Good point, VC; and I had missed that bit earlier.

At this stage, it's big IF though, and I'm not quite across the economies of reprocessing. I mean, spent is spent; you may be able to concentrate some of the remaining fissionable material, which would extend the useful "life" of the material; I'd have to study the subject in some more detail.
In any case, from all accounts that I've read, ERA is leaving a supply gap; if demand is picking up as analysts seem to expect, that can only benefit producers like PDN. I'm also bearing in mind that Kayalekera is already on c&m with Langer Heinrich's economies improving to profitability. PDN charts suggest a bottom reversal, so I'll stick with my holdings; they don't run up to sheep stations anyway.


----------



## Value Collector

pixel said:


> I mean, spent is spent; you may be able to concentrate some of the remaining fissionable material, which would extend the useful "life" of the material; I'd have to study the subject in some more detail.




Actually spent isn't spent.

A spent fuel rod actually contains a higher concentration of fissionable material than natural mined uranium.

Mined uranium contains 0.76% Uranium 235, which is the useable bit, this gets enriched to 5% to make a fuel rod, but once the fuel rod is "spent", it still contains about 2% usable material.

Not only does it have nearly 40% of its original uranium 235 left, but some of the original uranium 235 has been converted to plutonium during fission, this plutonium is fissionable and can be used to make new fuel rods called mox fuel.

so the end result is that you can take 3 spent fuel rods and make almost 2 new ones, and when these are used they can be reprocessed.

The USA also has a lot of nuclear weapons, and will most likely be reducing the amount over time, in the past when they have decommissioned weapons it has lead to up to 30% of power station fuel being sourced from decommissioned weapons.

Look up the "mega tonnes to mega watts program"


----------



## Smurf1976

Just thought I'd mention that the cost of uranium is a trivial part of the total cost of power generation using conventional nuclear systems. 

It's the cost of building the plant, operating and decommissioning it at end of life which chews up the money. Uranium itself is a comparatively trivial cost.

So far as the uranium market is concerned, the practical implication there is that short term (existing plants) demand is not price sensitive. Even if the uranium price went up 10 fold, nuclear power is still in the category of being hugely expensive on the capital cost side but it's cheap to just operate (versus having it sit idle) an existing plant. The economics there are very similar to brown coal and hydro - $$$ to build but cheap to run on a day to day basis.

As for the idea of using nuclear power in Australia, construction cost is the killer. Even if the fuel is literally free then the economics of the industry still don't really work here. So if we're going to generate power from reprocessing or otherwise using spent fuel rods, then someone would need to be paying us far more than the original value (new) of those rods to dispose of them. Whether or not that would happen I don't know, but the point is that the operating cost needs to be negative, literally being paid to run it, in order to offset the construction and eventual decommissioning cost.


----------



## Value Collector

Smurf1976 said:


> Just thought I'd mention that the cost of uranium is a trivial part of the total cost of power generation using conventional nuclear systems.
> 
> It's the cost of building the plant, operating and decommissioning it at end of life which chews up the money. Uranium itself is a comparatively trivial cost.
> 
> So far as the uranium market is concerned, the practical implication there is that short term (existing plants) demand is not price sensitive. Even if the uranium price went up 10 fold, nuclear power is still in the category of being hugely expensive on the capital cost side but it's cheap to just operate (versus having it sit idle) an existing plant. The economics there are very similar to brown coal and hydro - $$$ to build but cheap to run on a day to day basis.
> 
> As for the idea of using nuclear power in Australia, construction cost is the killer. Even if the fuel is literally free then the economics of the industry still don't really work here. So if we're going to generate power from reprocessing or otherwise using spent fuel rods, then someone would need to be paying us far more than the original value (new) of those rods to dispose of them. Whether or not that would happen I don't know, but the point is that the operating cost needs to be negative, literally being paid to run it, in order to offset the construction and eventual decommissioning cost.




I agree, but the fact that the Uranium fuel makes up a small percentage of the total cost of the plant, does not mean that any reactor operator is going to pay more than market price for their fuel, and the market price will be the result of supply and demand.

The reprocessing of existing spent fuel rods could provide a very large supply, which will eventually have to enter the market, and could enter the market at a very low cost as plants that are decommissioning seek to clear their stored rods and operating plants seek to reduce the cost of longterm waste storage.


----------



## Smurf1976

No disagreement there, but my point is that uranium is a somewhat unique market in that demand doesn't really respond to price. In most markets there's a degree of response from both demand and supply to a change in price, but with uranium the response, in the medium term (10 years) at least, is from the supply side only. As such the market has, in theory at least, the potential to be rather volatile - if the price goes through the roof then that won't lead to nuclear plants sitting idle.

In contrast, coal is constrained in price by the oil and gas price due to the ability to substitute to significant extent and that coal is a major part of the operating cost of a power plant using it (assuming export pricing for the coal - not always the case in practice but often is).


----------



## Value Collector

Smurf1976 said:


> No disagreement there, but my point is that uranium is a somewhat unique market in that demand doesn't really respond to price. In most markets there's a degree of response from both demand and supply to a change in price, but with uranium the response, in the medium term (10 years) at least, is from the supply side only. As such the market has, in theory at least, the potential to be rather volatile - if the price goes through the roof then that won't lead to nuclear plants sitting idle.
> 
> In contrast, coal is constrained in price by the oil and gas price due to the ability to substitute to significant extent and that coal is a major part of the operating cost of a power plant using it (assuming export pricing for the coal - not always the case in practice but often is).




Yes demand doesn't really respond to price, but the price certainly does respond to demand, and when the Americans do start reprocessing, we will have a whole lot of supply that won't respond to price.

In much the same way as a nuclear plant won't idle if the fuel costs increased, a reprocessing program who's aim is to reduce the volume of waste stored, will not idle supply if the price drops.

I just see the current supply being sufficient to meet demand, and we have a whole bunch of potential supply sitting on the side lines, and it will eventually come to market, whether that's 2years or 10years or 20years I am not sure. but when it does it will be big, and it will be willing to run at a loss.


----------



## AverageJoe

Value Collector said:


> Yes demand doesn't really respond to price, but the price certainly does respond to demand, and when the Americans do start reprocessing, we will have a whole lot of supply that won't respond to price.
> 
> In much the same way as a nuclear plant won't idle if the fuel costs increased, a reprocessing program who's aim is to reduce the volume of waste stored, will not idle supply if the price drops.
> 
> I just see the current supply being sufficient to meet demand, and we have a whole bunch of potential supply sitting on the side lines, and it will eventually come to market, whether that's 2years or 10years or 20years I am not sure. but when it does it will be big, and it will be willing to run at a loss.




Could you name me some triggers for a Uranium resurgence? I frankly can't see any post Fukushima. 

Crude collapse, Coal the same. Hell not even the Greens are talking solar/wind power anymore. Chevron sacking everyone in Karatha and we now have a gas glut. Fracking rules for cheap energy source. 

You have frequent reminders off Japanese shores yearly and even the anti U Japanese lobby has sustain their objections with fresh reminder of Fukushima.


----------



## Value Collector

AverageJoe said:


> Could you name me some triggers for a Uranium resurgence? I frankly can't see any post Fukushima.
> 
> Crude collapse, Coal the same. Hell not even the Greens are talking solar/wind power anymore. Chevron sacking everyone in Karatha and we now have a gas glut. Fracking rules for cheap energy source.
> 
> You have frequent reminders off Japanese shores yearly and even the anti U Japanese lobby has sustain their objections with fresh reminder of Fukushima.




Did you read my comments?

I wasn't making a case for a spike in the Uranium price, I was making a case that in the years ahead we may have a significant oversupply.

Any how, I do think there will be consistent stable demand that will rise slowly as more reactors in china ramp up, and Japanese get back into it. But I think Supply will be able to meet this slow growth easily.


----------



## AverageJoe

Value Collector said:


> Did you read my comments?
> 
> I wasn't making a case for a spike in the Uranium price, I was making a case that in the years ahead we may have a significant oversupply.
> 
> Any how, I do think there will be consistent stable demand that will rise slowly as more reactors in china ramp up, and Japanese get back into it. But I think Supply will be able to meet this slow growth easily.




Supply is over powering demand right now hence the low spot price. With the way nat gas price is, the Japanese industries will not be that pressurised by inflationary expenses on their energy input. 

There is a long lead time between the completion of the Chinese N plants to actual U consumption. es, they have to stockpile a few years before they flick the N switch but you will see that rush in the spot price immediately if another potential earth quake does not form off the Japanese coast to set panic station. Just too risky from my experiences.


----------



## Value Collector

Here are some comments about the Mega tonnes to mega watts program, a program where decommissioned Russian Nuclear war heads were converted into fuel to be sold into the USA, notice he mentions the affect on price.

when you think about the large amount of nuclear warheads that the USA have to decommission, and 50 years of spent fuel rods, there is a lot of non conventional supply out there.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FmjQxav4zlA[/video]


----------



## AverageJoe

Value Collector said:


> Here are some comments about the Mega tonnes to mega watts program, a program where decommissioned Russian Nuclear war heads were converted into fuel to be sold into the USA, notice he mentions the affect on price.
> 
> when you think about the large amount of nuclear warheads that the USA have to decommission, and 50 years of spent fuel rods, there is a lot of non conventional supply out there.
> 
> [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FmjQxav4zlA[/video]




LOL that garbage kept me in this sector longer than I should have. 

As I have said in the past, you only have to look at crude and Nat gas to get a taste of what to expect in the future of energy source. At least if you start buying dirt cheap U stocks, you can position yourself for a big hefty cap gain when it comes back into favor. It's a mater of how patient you are.


----------



## WRONG'UN

Or how old you are!


----------



## AverageJoe

I rather keep my working elsewhere than to buy a dead sector with only hope as capital. 

Here is a list of potential, DYL BMN TOE VMY AGS PEN SHE PDN. Can anyone see common things? Yep, look at an uptrend then turn head 180 degrees sideways and you see the 'real' chart.


----------



## peter2

The uranium sector is awakening. 
I keep an eye on Cameco (*CCJ*.us) and the uranium ETF *URA* (probably mostly CCJ). 

There has been a corresponding demand in ASX LISTED uranium companies, ERA, PDN, BKY, TOE, BMN.
After noticing this demand last week the ASX Momentum Portfolio took an interest in *BKY*.


----------



## DNA2013

It would be interesting to see if uranium prices are going to make a comeback after the recent production cuts from major uranium producers.

https://mywealthforlife.com/will-the-uranium-market-make-a-comeback/

As always. DYOR


----------



## Sean K

Not sure where best to restart the uranium discussion. Is there a better thread?

Seems the juniors have jumped the gun tripling and quadrupling in price over the past two years with the expectation POU is going back to $60-70. I think I said this somewhere else.

Is anyone on the uranium train these days, or is it just fluff?


----------



## peter2

Uranium ETF (URA- US) is being sold off as we speak. ASX uranium companies have been falling for the past two weeks. Uranium is cool for now, definitely not hot. 

Uranium won't rally unless the "crazies" change their mind and realise that nuclear is the only option to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for 24hr power generation.


----------



## Sean K

peter2 said:


> Uranium ETF (URA- US) is being sold off as we speak. ASX uranium companies have been falling for the past two weeks. Uranium is cool for now, definitely not hot.
> 
> Uranium won't rally unless the "crazies" change their mind and realise that nuclear is the only option to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for 24hr power generation.




Yes, I've been watching the juniors come off which is a good thing. Ran ahead of themselves.

We might have to wait until the lights goes out enough times for people to change their minds on nuclear. It's a big hurdle in non-nuclear countries such as Australia. Are we the only country in the OECD without nuclear as part of the mix? 

Anywho, I'm not thinking that we will be the ones to re-start the mothballed uranium mines but Japan and perhaps Chindia demand. 

I think it's a medium to long term play - 5-10 years.


----------



## peter2

This current dip in uranium is a "buy the dip" opportunity but as you mention it might take years for a decent profit.


----------



## Beaches

kennas said:


> Yes, I've been watching the juniors come off which is a good thing. Ran ahead of themselves.
> 
> We might have to wait until the lights goes out enough times for people to change their minds on nuclear. It's a big hurdle in non-nuclear countries such as Australia. Are we the only country in the OECD without nuclear as part of the mix?
> 
> Anywho, I'm not thinking that we will be the ones to re-start the mothballed uranium mines but Japan and perhaps Chindia demand.
> 
> I think it's a medium to long term play - 5-10 years.





There just doesn't seem to me to be any momentum for the uranium price to move substantially in the short term. It will have it's day in the sun again but for now, there are just better trading alternatives elsewhere.


----------



## Sean K

Beaches said:


> There just doesn't seem to me to be any momentum for the uranium price to move substantially in the short term. It will have it's day in the sun again but for now, there are just better trading alternatives elsewhere.




Certainly short term better opportunities, absolutely. Especially since the likes of PDN, BOE, DYL etc have already ran. 

I suppose my thesis is that if you have the patience and think POU is going to $60+, which makes all these juniors profitable, then getting in before the rest of the market does might be a good move. But, as above, maybe the long money has already moved. So, maybe I've missed it.

It entirely depends on the demand outstripping supply which is probably reliant on the hangover from Fukushima subsiding, alternatives to coal and gas do not become realised in the next 5-10 years, and therefore countries turning to nuclear as a solution pretty soon. Restarting old, and building new. I'm not convinced batteries and hydrogen is going to replace the gigawatts required to power the world if we're going to get to net zero by 2030 or 2050 or 2100 even. The other factor may be that the earth starts cooling while CO2 continues to go up which may indicate that CO2 is not the climate control knob and we just restart coal and gas.


----------



## Sean K

Morgan Stanley thinks uranium is looking good. Short news article here. Not direct from MS.


----------



## Sean K

Sprott Uranium Trust started trading a few days ago and may be already moving things along.

Stockhead article. ASX Stocks Are Beginning to React ....


----------



## divs4ever

STATE OF EMERGENCY OVER MORE ELECTRICITY BLACKOUTS | HERE IS THE FIX​


 rambles on a bit 

 but gives hints on uranium use in the US in the coming decade


----------



## Sean K

divs4ever said:


> STATE OF EMERGENCY OVER MORE ELECTRICITY BLACKOUTS | HERE IS THE FIX​




The US is going to have to stop shutting down their plants to synchronise their transition to RE with storage solutions or it's just going to get worse for them. Not sure how much longer or how much worse it gets before there's policy changes. There's been ongoing debate in congress. Michael Shellenberger is regularly appearing and dissecting the problem and ramping nuclear. Highly recommend his book Apocalypse Never.

Meanwhile Japan has been bringing back on line several reactors on the west coast while some of the reactors with same systems as Fukushima will not come back on line and be decommissioned. Something about cooling systems I believe, but they are bringing a large number back.


----------



## divs4ever

let us see in BHP decides to expand Olympic Dam  , they preferred chasing copper in South America  , in there last big Capex decision shift 

allegedly there are plenty of assorted goodies in O.P. but BHP is probably wary of political risk 

 that would be a solid hint uranium is popular once again 

 Russia is selling plenty of 'mini-nuke ' power plants , and China is building plenty as well inside China and for international customers 

 i wonder if Russia is still dismantling the old nuke warheads ( they WERE selling the fuel , to US power plants )

if so how big is the need to mine more uranium ( near-term )  , i wonder


----------



## Sean K

divs4ever said:


> i wonder if Russia is still dismantling the old nuke warheads ( they WERE selling the fuel , to US power plants )
> 
> if so how big is the need to mine more uranium ( near-term )  , i wonder




Yes, I did listen to and/or read something about the stockpiles being used. Same as with Japan post Fukushima - they had a lot of inventory to spread around. I think it was a uranium discussion on you tube but will check with Mr Google also.


----------



## divs4ever

i have avoided investing in uranium ( as a sole resource ) before because of the changing politics 

 remember when Julia Gillard declined to sell yellow cake to India when the local miners could have done with help 

 my issue with uranium ( power ) is that is SHOULD have been gearing up in the 1970's  , and we should have been REPLACING them about now 

 50 years of dumb policy , so why would i start trusting them now  ( most of the new crop  aren't  but a shadow of their predecessors )


----------



## Sean K

divs4ever said:


> i have avoided investing in uranium ( as a sole resource ) before because of the changing politics
> 
> remember when Julia Gillard declined to sell yellow cake to India when the local miners could have done with help
> 
> my issue with uranium ( power ) is that is SHOULD have been gearing up in the 1970's  , and we should have been REPLACING them about now
> 
> 50 years of dumb policy , so why would i start trusting them now  ( most of the new crop  aren't  but a shadow of their predecessors )




I'm not counting on Australia as a uranium purchaser, but a seller.

We did actually have a plan to build our first reactor in the 70s but there was a change of government / leader and because of ideology and cost benefit between coal and uranium and coal was cheaper because we had so much of it laying about. The foundations of that plant are still sitting there at Jervis Bay.


----------



## divs4ever

but if we used some of it ( more than the Lucas Heights consumption ) maybe we would be inspired the mine more and sell more 

 and i suspect Australia will continue to use coal for as long as it can , ( and live of the export royalties as well )


----------



## Smurf1976

kennas said:


> We did actually have a plan to build our first reactor in the 70s but there was a change of government / leader and because of ideology and cost benefit between coal and uranium and coal was cheaper because we had so much of it laying about. The foundations of that plant are still sitting there at Jervis Bay.



The basic requirement for nuclear to stack up is:

1. Government sees fossil fuels as a problem. That could be either for economic reasons (countries which import), practical ones (logistics of fuel supply etc) or environment (either climate change or local issues).

2. The government is keen on central planning of energy supply.

3. The government considers nuclear to be an option.

4. There is no option to build hydro as an alternative, or it has been ruled out for whatever reason.

Points 2 & 3 are mutually exclusive in most Western countries. Central planning is to the political "Left" of most major parties whilst nuclear is to the political "Right". Rarely do they meet. Since the free market approach doesn't generally favour nuclear, that results in few such projects in Western countries (and of those which do exist, they're often exceptions driven by government for political reasons or to retain skills).

New power reactors being commissioned in 2021. All power output figures are electrical power output and are total for the country in that year not per reactor:

2021:
Argentina = 1 reactor, 29 MW output.
China = 2 reactors, total 1361 MW.
India = 2 reactors, 1200 MW.
Slovakia = 1 reactor, 471 MW.
UAE = 1 reactor, 1400 MW.
USA = 1 reactor, 1250 MW.
TOTAL 2021 = 5711 MW

2022:
Belarus = 1 reactor, 1194 MW
China = 3 reactors, 3479 MW
Finland = 1 reactor, 1720 MW
India = 1 reactor, 700 MW
Korea 1 reactor, 1400 MW
Pakistan = 1 reactor, 1161 MW
Russia = 1 reactor, 1255 MW
UAE = 1 reactor, 1400 MW
USA = 1 reactor, 1250 MW
TOTAL 2022 = 13,559 MW

2023:
Bangladesh = 1 reactor, 1200 MW
China = 1 reactor, 600 MW
France = 1 reactor, 1650 MW
India = 3 reactors, 2700 MW
Korea = 2 reactors, 2800 MW
Russia = 1 reactor, 1255 MW
Slovakia = 1 reactor, 471 MW
Turkey = 1 reactor, 1200 MW
UAE = 1 reactor, 1400 MW
TOTAL 2023 = 13,276 MW

2024:
Bangladesh = 1 reactor, 1200 MW
China = 2 reactors, 2712 MW
Iran = 1 reactor, 1057 MW
Korea = 1 reactor, 1400 MW
Turkey = 1 reactor, 1200 MW
TOTAL 2024 = 7569 MW

2025:
China = 3 reactors, 3912 MW
Turkey = 1 reactor, 1200 MW
TOTAL 2025 = 5112 MW

2026:
China = 5 reactors, 4277 MW
India = 1 reactor, 1000 MW
UK = 1 reactor, 1720 MW
TOTAL 2026 = 6997 MW

2027:
China = 2 reactors, 2400 MW
UK = 1 reactor, 1720 MW
TOTAL 2027 = 4120 MW

Sourced from World Nuclear Association data.


----------



## Smurf1976

Adding to my previous post, the bit I failed to mention is that nuclear power stations are by their very nature government projects.

Either government is the actual owner, or it's privately owned but built because government wants it.

It's rare to see nuclear built privately where government is indifferent and doesn't happen where government is opposed since the very nature of it requires that government's on side.

From an investment perspective, I'm always cautious of any industry where government has a major influence since it's another risk that isn't always easy to assess.


----------



## divs4ever

Smurf1976 said:


> The basic requirement for nuclear to stack up is:
> 
> 1. Government sees fossil fuels as a problem. That could be either for economic reasons (countries which import), practical ones (logistics of fuel supply etc) or environment (either climate change or local issues).
> 
> 2. The government is keen on central planning of energy supply.
> 
> 3. The government considers nuclear to be an option.
> 
> 4. There is no option to build hydro as an alternative, or it has been ruled out for whatever reason.
> 
> Points 2 & 3 are mutually exclusive in most Western countries. Central planning is to the political "Left" of most major parties whilst nuclear is to the political "Right". Rarely do they meet. Since the free market approach doesn't generally favour nuclear, that results in few such projects in Western countries (and of those which do exist, they're often exceptions driven by government for political reasons or to retain skills).
> 
> New power reactors being commissioned in 2021. All power output figures are electrical power output and are total for the country in that year not per reactor:
> 
> 2021:
> Argentina = 1 reactor, 29 MW output.
> China = 2 reactors, total 1361 MW.
> India = 2 reactors, 1200 MW.
> Slovakia = 1 reactor, 471 MW.
> UAE = 1 reactor, 1400 MW.
> USA = 1 reactor, 1250 MW.
> TOTAL 2021 = 5711 MW
> 
> 2022:
> Belarus = 1 reactor, 1194 MW
> China = 3 reactors, 3479 MW
> Finland = 1 reactor, 1720 MW
> India = 1 reactor, 700 MW
> Korea 1 reactor, 1400 MW
> Pakistan = 1 reactor, 1161 MW
> Russia = 1 reactor, 1255 MW
> UAE = 1 reactor, 1400 MW
> USA = 1 reactor, 1250 MW
> TOTAL 2022 = 13,559 MW
> 
> 2023:
> Bangladesh = 1 reactor, 1200 MW
> China = 1 reactor, 600 MW
> France = 1 reactor, 1650 MW
> India = 3 reactors, 2700 MW
> Korea = 2 reactors, 2800 MW
> Russia = 1 reactor, 1255 MW
> Slovakia = 1 reactor, 471 MW
> Turkey = 1 reactor, 1200 MW
> UAE = 1 reactor, 1400 MW
> TOTAL 2023 = 13,276 MW
> 
> 2024:
> Bangladesh = 1 reactor, 1200 MW
> China = 2 reactors, 2712 MW
> Iran = 1 reactor, 1057 MW
> Korea = 1 reactor, 1400 MW
> Turkey = 1 reactor, 1200 MW
> TOTAL 2024 = 7569 MW
> 
> 2025:
> China = 3 reactors, 3912 MW
> Turkey = 1 reactor, 1200 MW
> TOTAL 2025 = 5112 MW
> 
> 2026:
> China = 5 reactors, 4277 MW
> India = 1 reactor, 1000 MW
> UK = 1 reactor, 1720 MW
> TOTAL 2026 = 6997 MW
> 
> 2027:
> China = 2 reactors, 2400 MW
> UK = 1 reactor, 1720 MW
> TOTAL 2027 = 4120 MW
> 
> Sourced from World Nuclear Association data.



 so i am guessing the new reactor in Argentina  , is of Russian 'mini-nuke' design 

 but an interesting array of nations seeking a nuclear power solution to their future needs 

 cheers


----------



## Sean K

@Smurf1976  An argument I regularly hear about not building nuclear plants is that they're too expensive. I think they go for about $10b and Finland's plant which is about 15 years behind has blown out to $20b, or something. HTF is Bangladesh building two?  😲 I assume China is actually building them as part of B&R debt trap, as a guess.


----------



## Sean K

divs4ever said:


> so i am guessing the new reactor in Argentina  , is of Russian 'mini-nuke' design




Nuclear subs probably deliver that much power....


----------



## divs4ever

as i understood it that was what it was based on  a nuke sub power plant without the sub 

 if so in has been relatively well tested ( except without the sea to cool it  , so cooling MIGHT still be an issue )

 HOWEVER depending on where such a power plant was used  ( say a large mining complex ) it might be an excellent solution for under-developed nations  , so they can get some manufacturing happening 

 time will tell if it is a good idea or just a cheap stop-gap  until other energy systems are developed , because most renewables has a storage weak point currently


----------



## divs4ever

kennas said:


> @Smurf1976  An argument I regularly hear about not building nuclear plants is that they're too expensive. I think they go for about $10b and Finland's plant which is about 15 years behind has blown out to $20b, or something. HTF is Bangladesh building two?  😲 I assume China is actually building them as part of B&R debt trap, as a guess.



last i read ( and i am far from up-to-date) on nuclear technology  the Chinese had  improved on the Westinghouse design ( NOT re-invented  it ) so one might imagine  a better design at a competitive cost  , but heard nothing said on durability and robustness of the plants )

 but Chinese debt trap  v. an IMF debt trap ( or US aid one ) is the difference that big , it is still a debt trap to leverage political influence 

 and what is $10 billion or $20 billion  if you are looking directly into runaway inflation ( maybe even hyper-inflation )

 maybe they are expecting hyper-inflation so the completion date is more important than the cost 

 cheers


----------



## Sean K

A pretty measured summary of where we're at with uranium atm.


----------



## Smurf1976

kennas said:


> HTF is Bangladesh building two?



Not something I've looked into but it does raise some questions yes.....


----------



## Sean K

Maybe it's not too late to participate?

As mentioned a few times, stocks seem to have run ahead of themselves and many have taken profits. I'm waiting for decent dips to add more and @finicky 's market crash.


----------



## Stockbailx

I’m no Oracle, but 5-year highs are usually worth paying attention to. The Spot Uranium price/pound according to UxC’s Daily Broker Average Price was $34.59, +0.84% yesterday. But why is this happening NOW? And do we/I think the market is moving purely on “fundamentals”?




*Game Changer:* *The creation of the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (U-U CN) two weeks ago may be the catalyst we needed*. Cleaning up the supply. When UPC became SPUT, with the ATM in place, they’ve been active. During its first 10 days in existence, it has taken in roughly USD $80 million. These proceeds are being used to acquire physical uranium and they’ve now bought roughly 2.3 million pounds with those proceeds. Perspective is everything… this is 200,000 lbs. a day of net buying or roughly a 45 million run-rate annually or roughly a third of total annual supply.


----------



## Stockbailx

Ran into sum encouraging news this morning from Small Caps, for Uranium backers who have shares into the trade, like me, things turning positive for the future price. As demand should increase and supply hits a head wind and not forget company's like Sprotts recent involvement. Things looking on the up and up for the commodity...




Meanwhile, demand is getting stronger with data from the World Nuclear Association forecasting an increase to 162Mlbs this year, then 206Mlbs in 2030 and potentially up to 292Mlbs by 2040.


----------



## Sean K

A bit of healthy consolidation today, but now I'm looking at long tails on all the candles.... 

Latest summary from The Man.


----------



## Stockbailx

I must be excused, I had a vidio link to post but vidio was unavailable, Sorry!


----------



## Stockbailx

Here a link in regards to my previous post on this thread. Makes for sum interesting listening; Wrong Vid have a listen anyway?


----------



## Stockbailx

Here a comprehensive look at past fundamentals of the Uranium Sector, against the future movement. An Interesting incentive to investors in the sector. Telling of the overall out look of Uranium, for the future Market;


----------



## Sean K

The charts in the US and Canada are looking the same to ours. Some good technical points in this.


----------



## Ann

Once they have managed to kick oil, coal and gas out of the playground then there is very little real industrial-sized energy available except nuclear. Can't see wind, hydro or sun having enough grunt to run massive turbines, certainly not with the collection and delivery methods as they currently stand. I am not thrilled by the thought of nuclear proliferation but oil and gas are too finite and the alternatives are too much in their infancy. Also the younger generation has been so fired up with fear about climate change and the demonization of fossil fuels they will accept nuclear with unquestioning obedience when those who are running the narrative tell them it is the best fuel for the world. Tough when we have Chernobyl events all over the world, I guess we will adapt to live with radiation.

This is a quote from Trading Economics I found interesting especially with the thought about how easily the U price could be manipulated.....

"Uranium futures briefly rallied to above $50 a pound in late September, the highest since June 2012, before slightly easing, boosted by purchases from an investment fund. Sprott Physical Uranium Trust resumed purchases after Canadian securities regulators approved the expansion of the equity sales program allowing the fund to purchase up to $1 billion in additional uranium in the next few months. The Canada-based fund is the only one that holds the physical commodity rather than futures contracts. Meanwhile, the supply of the nuclear-energy element remains tight. Euratom Supply Agency said that the coronavirus pandemic has significantly influenced the market as several companies announced in the second quarter of 2020 measures leading to an important decrease in production and related services. Also, Kazatomprom, the world's largest uranium producer decided to keep production flat in 2022 and 2023."


----------



## Stockbailx

Here's a sign that Uranium Demand is taking control of the sector. Lord behold its what it need to surge...

NuScale signs agreement with new Polish partners to replace coal​ NuScale has signed a second agreement to consider its small reactors as a general replacement for coal units in Poland. The US small reactor vendor will support two energy firms, Poland-based Unimot and USA-based Getka, in their joint work to explore the possibility.


----------



## Dona Ferentes




----------



## Smurf1976

Ann said:


> an't see wind, hydro or sun having enough grunt to run massive turbines, certainly not with the collection and delivery methods as they currently stand.



From a purely engineering perspective it's doable most certainly, indeed hydro, wind and solar combined are already far larger than nuclear power globally and with stronger growth that gap is widening.

In 2020 nuclear generated 10.12% of world electricity production versus 28.98% from renewables. Data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

In practice however energy decisions are driven largely by politics. So long as the engineering works, and both nuclear and renewables can be made to work technically, then beyond that it's economics and politics. Of the two, politics usually trumps economics given it's governments making the decisions in practice.

Taking the Australian context to make the point, if Australia decided to develop nuclear power then it won't be someone like the board of AGL or Origin deciding to do it. It'll be government that makes the decision and so long as the engineering can be made to work, the rest's about politics. Economics can always be fudged if need be. Much the same for pretty much every country - decisions about energy, particularly nuclear, are mostly made by governments.

*In terms of investing in uranium stocks however, I'll go wherever the market goes.*

Nuclear power as an industry most certainly does have competition though and economics alone doesn't determine the outcome - politics is the largest factor of the lot.





If politics decides that nuclear's the future though well then that's the outcome. My point is simply to be aware that's what's deciding it, politics, and there is indeed an alternative.


----------



## sptrawler

Spot on @Smurf1976 , politics, media pressure and public opinion, beats technical every time.
The issue this time round is IMO, technical will trump media and public opinion.


----------



## Stockbailx

Uranium had an adventure last week, falling sharply, a bounce of resurgence Monday. With more signs of nuclear power coming into play;

*UK needs new nuclear, says Prime Minister*​The UK government is in discussions regarding proposals for a new nuclear power plant at Wylfa on Anglesey, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed on 2 October in an interview with _BBC Wales_. He said previous governments in the country "have refused to take the tough decisions on nuclear for too long." Meanwhile, EDF Energy has called for the government to make prompt decisions regarding the Sizewell C project.
Johnson said the cost of energy can be held down "if we make the big long-term investments that we need to do now in clean power generation. So, whether that's wind - where we're going up to 40 GW by 2030, we can do even more - or nuclear."
He added, "We do need to go forward with more nuclear power. I do think it should be part of our baseload, a big part. And that's why yes, of course, we're looking at Wylfa and lots of other projects."
Reacting to the Prime Minister's comments, Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said: "The PM is right to back long-term investments in nuclear and to take the big decisions. We need new nuclear to secure our energy future with clean, reliable, British power. We look forward to the government bringing forward legislation to do just that this autumn."


----------



## Ann

Smurf1976 said:


> If politics decides that nuclear's the future though well then that's the outcome. My point is simply to be aware that's what's deciding it, politics, and there is indeed an alternative.




Yes, this is very clear to me and totally agree with you Smurf. As the climate change agenda grips the political landscape ever harder in its control over government policies, I can see a time when countries will be rewarded with carbon credits for using "clean" energy such as nuclear. Shortly I will put up a chart for EU Carbon Permits, the price has increased by 80.68% since the beginning of 2021. This I believe will be the weapon by which governments will be clubbed into submission.

However, I am heartened by your comments on current renewables having enough grunt for industry. 

In the meantime, it appears the price of oil and coal are taking off, just when BHP have jettisoned both these commodities! 

My imagination is telling me that it is the last hoorah for both these commodities and they are in the process of being run up and then dumped. Time will tell.


----------



## Smurf1976

Stockybailz said:


> The UK government is in discussions regarding proposals for a new nuclear power plant at Wylfa on Anglesey, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed on 2 October in an interview with _BBC Wales_.



Given the huge spike in the price of natural gas which has taken place across the EU and UK, to levels that are simply crippling financially, it's pretty much a given that at least some governments will "do something" in response.

Building nuclear power stations certainly isn't the only possible response but it's definitely one of them. All other things being equal, a massive spike in the price of natural gas sure isn't bad for any alternative technology and that includes nuclear as well as others. 

That said, it'll be quite some years before anything which comes out of that physically needs uranium on site. How the market responds to that, anticipated future demand versus present actual demand, is a question.....


----------



## qldfrog

Ann said:


> Yes, this is very clear to me and totally agree with you Smurf. As the climate change agenda grips the political landscape ever harder in its control over government policies, I can see a time when countries will be rewarded with carbon credits for using "clean" energy such as nuclear. Shortly I will put up a chart for EU Carbon Permits, the price has increased by 80.68% since the beginning of 2021. This I believe will be the weapon by which governments will be clubbed into submission.
> 
> However, I am heartened by your comments on current renewables having enough grunt for industry.
> 
> In the meantime, it appears the price of oil and coal are taking off, just when BHP have jettisoned both these commodities!
> 
> My imagination is telling me that it is the last hoorah for both these commodities and they are in the process of being run up and then dumped. Time will tell.



Last chapter true...in the next 20y...so will happen yes..Quickly?..no way


----------



## Stockbailx

Lets say; What's the score in 5-10 years. New reactors built positive energy towards climate change. Czechs heading in a similar direction to nuclear, Poland on Board, English signing up, Australian Subs. It's the new age, an unpredictable commodity. My faith is heading for a surge on demand. I mean think of the space age, everything running nuclear...


----------



## Sean K

Spot U up a couple of bucks, SPUTT probably buying, overseas stocks jump, ASX stocks up 10-20%. Doesn't take much positive news for our juniors to jump.


----------



## Sean K

Juniors up 15-20% yesterday. POU up 15% overnight. Nth A stocks and ETFs up significantly and huge volumes. Going to be another crazy day, but if I was relatively new money to this I'd be taking the opportunity to take profits soon. I've already done that and almost free carried. Didn't top up at the last correction when they were hitting support as I thought they were still overvalued. Oh well. Still long term play for me, topping up on future weakness, although, this looks like it could run away a bit too much and there's potential to miss the insanity.


----------



## Stockbailx

*Issued 26 October 2021*​




*Nuclear industry report shows how nuclear technologies contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals*​















Released today, a new document - *Nuclear’s role in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals* - highlights how nuclear technologies contribute to addressing issues such as eliminating hunger, improving health, providing access to affordable and clean energy, generating decent work and economic growth, and mobilizing climate action.

The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an urgent call for action by all countries in a global partnership. The goals recognize that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with improving health and education, reducing inequality, and spurring economic growth – all while tackling climate change and protecting our environment.

This document has been produced through collaboration by Canadian Nuclear Association, FORATOM, Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Nuclear Energy Institute, Nuclear Industry Association and World Nuclear Association.

In an introduction to the document the heads of these organizations made the following comments:

_“Nuclear energy provides the clean, on-demand affordable electricity needed to meet the world’s growing energy demands, while fulfilling the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement. But nuclear technologies do so much more! The planet and humanity are much better off because of the many nuclear contributions to achieving each of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals.”_
*Sama Bilbao y León, Director General, World Nuclear Association*

_“Nuclear requires very little land to generate massive quantities of low carbon energy. This low land footprint brings numerous benefits, not only in terms of reduced visual impacts. A lower land footprint reduces the loss of habitats, thus helping to support biodiversity goals.”_
*Yves Desbazeille, Director General, FORATOM*

_“Nuclear is a key energy source to balance the so-called three Es: energy security, economic efficiency, and environmental sustainability. It is a reliable, established technology that can contribute significantly to a sustainable future.”_
*Shiro Arai, President, Japan Atomic Industrial Forum*

_“Advanced and existing nuclear reactors can provide new possibilities to support clean industrialization worldwide. They are uniquely positioned to provide clean electricity, decarbonize our resource extraction and heavy industries, work in tandem with renewables and can be used to produce hydrogen in a cost-effective, clean way using either electricity or heat processes.”_
*John Gorman, President and CEO, Canadian Nuclear Association*

_“Nuclear energy provides skilled, well-paid, long-term jobs that are essential to a just transition. Jobs in nuclear drive valuable investment into local communities and create real opportunities for the next generation to build a better life.”_
*Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive, Nuclear Industry Association*

_“Reliable nuclear carbon-free energy provides the foundation of a clean energy future to reach climate goals and improve public health and quality of life.”_
*Maria Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute*

The report is available to *download *and to *read online*.


----------



## Sean K

POU seems to be stabilising around the $45-50 mark which is nice after such a significant jump last month. Needs to just establish a nice base around here to set itself up for a gentle push to $60 which is the mark for mothballed miners to go ahead with getting offtake agreements, updated their mills and getting ready for mining. Nuclear is getting lots of air time in the international media and there seems to be a push to not just keep and restart plants but build new ones. The longer term view is looking pretty rosie.


----------



## Sean K

Uranium and therefore stocks have had a choppy ride since breaking up. Seems to have held well above $40 but needs a solid push above $50 at some point to encourage mothballed miners into definite action on restarting although a few have made some substantial moves already. Still prepared to buy dips now as consensus after COP26 seems to be there will be more nuclear plants going forward, not less.


----------



## Sean K

Hasn't been as many big uranium swings this week. Been pretty steady above $45 and inching back to $50. It's ugly to chart as there's not much intraday action. Probably better to chart one of the uranium ETFs that seems to track the POU in the main, except include general market and metals sentiment. And, as published, most of our U stocks are tracking very similar patterns that seem to look a little like the POU chart. A breakout at the end of Aug, overshoot with a big spike, profit taking, recovery, consolidation, now heading back to highs forming a large ascending triangle/wedge/flag thing. It could keep curling sideways for a bit longer to develop the strength to spring back through $50. First job to break the last high at $49. Seems not a question of if, but when.

From Trading Economics


----------



## Sean K

I’ve had a concern Kazatomprom or Camenco would simply up their production to fix the supply demand nexus coming up, and that may just be the case. Need to confirm the details about timing and pounds per year but adding 200tns of additional supply for China at the click of their fingers has got to fill some gaps.


----------



## Sean K

The uranium resurgence has stalled the past three months after the amazing run up in September. All the juniors have come well off, tracked sideways and down and some breaking some key support levels. Fairly bullish looking flag set up here on the longer term chart. Possibly an opportunity soon if she does break up for those who missed the first run and if we believe the longer term nuclear narrative.


----------



## Stockbailx




----------



## Stockbailx

Whats ahead for Uranium in 2022. Analyst say preces will surge ahead on gains, 2021 was an eventful year for uranium. Experts weigh in on supply cuts, rising demand and more.


----------



## qldfrog

Germany closed yesterday 3 more reactors, with the 3 remaining 3 to close in dec 2022.
Germany has do nearly completed its park closure from 17 to 3 and doon none, and is burning coal and gas..soon Russian gas..


----------



## Sean K

qldfrog said:


> Germany closed yesterday 3 more reactors, with the 3 remaining 3 to close in dec 2022.
> Germany has do nearly completed its park closure from 17 to 3 and doon none, and is burning coal and gas..soon Russian gas..




Energy security and cost in most of Europe is a real worry. Russia has them by the balls. 









						Germany, Belgium to close nuclear reactors despite Europe energy crisis
					

Germany intends to phase out all of its nuclear reactors by the end of next year, while Belgium is to shut down its existing plants by 2025.




					balkangreenenergynews.com
				












						Germany to close nuclear reactors despite energy crisis
					

Germany will shut down three nuclear power plants on Friday even as Europe faces one of its worst ever energy crises, following Angela Merkel's timetable for phasing out atomic energy.




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## sptrawler

I think it is one of those issues that will resolve itself, renewables are the cheapest form of generation so obviously everyone is going for them.
If they find that they can't generate enough power to run the system, something else will have to be added to the mix.
The Chinese obviously don't feel renewables are going to be enough, they are installing over 100 new nuclear plants, considering the amount of solar panels and wind turbines China makes one would think they would solely rely on them if it was feasible.


----------



## Sean K

POU hitting $60 will trigger mothballed mines to fast track re-start. Going to be a good Monday I guess. 

There may be a war premium in this, like there is with gold, so hard to say what's going to happen when a truce is called.


----------



## Sean K

Some nice healthy consolidation at the $60 mark. You'd expect this to be a significant wall now with the much telegraphed $60 incentive price being hit. It's caused BOE to tap the market and go to redevelopment, but the other moth-balled miners are yet to take the plunge from what I've seen. PDN and LOT must be close to making the call. 

Having a mid to longer term view of this, I'm just happy with the price to stay above the $50 mark for some consolidation while there's so much uncertainty with the market and geopolitics right now.


----------



## Stockbailx




----------



## Sean K

Seems to have made a move from the consolidation around $59. Still a lot of volatility due to the war though. Anything could happen.


----------



## Tyre Kicker

Boris J pledged 8 nuclear reactors over the next 8 years. France up to 14.

Not a fait accompli but surely other nations will follow after the Russia/Ukraine war and the realisation that they’ve been over a barrel for a while re Putin and energy AND the climate change issue.

Demand for uranium should build nicely. Will the Sprot buying leave a shortage??


----------



## Sean K

Tyre Kicker said:


> Boris J pledged 8 nuclear reactors over the next 8 years. France up to 14.
> 
> Not a fait accompli but surely other nations will follow after the Russia/Ukraine war and the realisation that they’ve been over a barrel for a while re Putin and energy AND the climate change issue.
> 
> Demand for uranium should build nicely. Will the Sprot buying leave a shortage??




If the far-Right Le Pen wins the France Presidential election, expect that 14 to go higher. The tides are changing in Germany too, who are probably complicit in allowing Russia the air to invade Ukraine due to their reliance on Russian FFs. I anticipate Germany to dial back their rush to exit nuclear and potentially do a 180 and plan to build more. Japan is watching this unfold and with their reliance on FF from abroad, coming through the South China Sea, and nuclear, I expect them to build more plants too in expectation of China closing off their FF supplies when they invade Taiwan.


----------



## sptrawler

Sean K said:


> If the far-Right Le Pen wins the France Presidential election, expect that 14 to go higher. The tides are changing in Germany too, who are probably complicit in allowing Russia the air to invade Ukraine due to their reliance on Russian FFs. I anticipate Germany to dial back their rush to exit nuclear and potentially do a 180 and plan to build more. Japan is watching this unfold and with their reliance on FF from abroad, coming through the South China Sea, and nuclear, I expect them to build more plants too in expectation of China closing off their FF supplies when they invade Taiwan.



We did say a while back this could happen, China already committed to 100+ stations, the U.K a further 8, Germany is really wedged so it is only a matter of when not if IMO, the U.S will no doubt have to follow suit. IMO it is just a case of picking a winner.


----------



## Sean K

sptrawler said:


> IMO it is just a case of picking a winner.




Or, throw a dart at re-starts and advanced developers. The easy money has probably been made, but there's a leg left in the run, IMO. MCs of the juniors are getting hefty again though.


----------



## peter2

I'm going to disagree that the easy money has been made because it hasn't been easy. Over the past two years there's been plenty of false starts and price pumps and dumps. Recently the price movements in uranium stocks have been very volatile. 

The potential uranium producers have been waiting the the POU to hit $60 which it has just done. If it stabilises at this level (as mentioned by @Sean K ) then I think it will be easier to trade them as the companies will be building their plants furiously to supply their product into an increasing market. 

Therefore the "easy" money will be made in the next few years.


----------



## Tyre Kicker

Any opinions about how a Labor Party victory will effect mining industry in general and in particular, uranium miners and the sales of uranium to other countries?


----------



## qldfrog

Tyre Kicker said:


> Any opinions about how a Labor Party victory will effect mining industry in general and in particular, uranium miners and the sales of uranium to other countries?



IMO, obviously depends on the Green score and them being needed or not to gain majority


----------



## Dona Ferentes

Tyre Kicker said:


> Boris J pledged 8 nuclear reactors over the next 8 years.



The strategy contains an ambition to deliver up to eight new nuclear reactors before 2030, including two at Sizewell in Suffolk. The government wants nuclear to supply 24 gigawatts (GW) of electricity by 2050 - *around 25% *of the UK's predicted energy demand.

The UK currently has 15 reactors that can supply about 20% of demand - with most due to cease operating before the end of the decade.

Thirteen new reactors are at various stages of development, but funding and approving new sites has presented major challenges in recent years. A new government body - called Great British Nuclear - will be set up to oversee the delivery of new nuclear plants. The government also recently acquired new powers to finance new projects by allowing developers to add costs to customers' bills during construction.


----------



## Sean K

Tyre Kicker said:


> Any opinions about how a Labor Party victory will effect mining industry in general and in particular, uranium miners and the sales of uranium to other countries?




Agree with @qldfrog that if Labor gets in on a Green deal then any future national uranium mining laws will be in jeopardy. But, there's existing state laws in place to allow it. Let's face it though, if the Greens have the balance of power they will try and kill anything that emits CO2 or methane. Lock up your sheep, cows and dogs.


----------



## Sean K

peter2 said:


> I'm going to disagree that the easy money has been made because it hasn't been easy.




Agree, it hasn't been easy. Needed some conviction in the narrative and fundamentals. Big risk. The easy money entered more than 12 months ago, and probably sold out in late Sep last year. But, some of those re-entered after the sell-off (eg Rick Rule) with the conviction in the narrative. He's probably a seller today.


----------



## Tyre Kicker

Sean K said:


> Agree with @qldfrog that if Labor gets in on a Green deal then any future national uranium mining laws will be in jeopardy. But, there's existing state laws in place to allow it. Let's face it though, if the Greens have the balance of power they will try and kill anything that emits CO2 or methane. Lock up your sheep, cows and dogs.




100%.

Concerning as an investor in the uranium space.


----------



## qldfrog

Sean K said:


> Agree with @qldfrog that if Labor gets in on a Green deal then any future national uranium mining laws will be in jeopardy. But, there's existing state laws in place to allow it. Let's face it though, if the Greens have the balance of power they will try and kill anything that emits CO2 or methane. Lock up your sheep, cows and dogs.



or ICE cars, trucks, fields, individual houses, fire, anything we used to call progress but is obviously the crime of mankind against nature ;-)


----------



## Sean K

I'm still bullish on uranium medium term, until there's another tsunami that effects a stupidly positioned reactor, or the Green's get in power.


----------



## Ann

Very much doubt this will negatively impact the new physical ETF.

Uranium Draws Investors as SEC Rejects Sprott U.S. Fund

(Bloomberg) -- Commodities investors see uranium as a rising star, a material needed for nuclear power in a world moving away from fossil fuels. For the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, investing in it is another story.
Most Read from Bloomberg


The SEC this week rejected an application by the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust to become the first such fund to trade on U.S. exchanges, the company said, citing a failure to meet listing standards. A Sprott statement pointed to challenges including the structure of the trust “and the nature of the physical uranium market.”

Think about it: how would redemption and delivery of radioactive material work?

continue reading...

hold PDN, PEN, DYL, AGE


----------



## qldfrog

Ann said:


> Very much doubt this will negatively impact the new physical ETF.
> 
> Uranium Draws Investors as SEC Rejects Sprott U.S. Fund
> 
> (Bloomberg) -- Commodities investors see uranium as a rising star, a material needed for nuclear power in a world moving away from fossil fuels. For the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, investing in it is another story.
> Most Read from Bloomberg
> 
> 
> The SEC this week rejected an application by the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust to become the first such fund to trade on U.S. exchanges, the company said, citing a failure to meet listing standards. A Sprott statement pointed to challenges including the structure of the trust “and the nature of the physical uranium market.”
> 
> Think about it: how would redemption and delivery of radioactive material work?
> 
> continue reading...
> 
> hold PDN, PEN, DYL, AGE



Imagine Iran becoming the major shareholder...and redeeming😂


----------



## Ann

qldfrog said:


> Imagine Iran becoming the major shareholder...and redeeming😂



Who needs to worry about Iran when the biggest, craziest warmonger in the whole world has loads of the stuff already in Russia and with existing bombs, Iran would be the least of our problems.

Edit. I think the biggest risk is Sprott might corner the market for Uranium and that is not a good thing.


----------



## frugal.rock

Sean K said:


> I'm still bullish on uranium medium term, until there's another tsunami that effects a stupidly positioned reactor, or the Green's get in power.



Was more a case of backup pumps and generators failing due to being to low and being inundated, by memory.
One small design and planning flaw bringing the whole thing undone.


----------



## qldfrog

Ann said:


> Who needs to worry about Iran when the biggest, craziest warmonger in the whole world has loads of the stuff already in Russia and with existing bombs, Iran would be the least of our problems.
> 
> Edit. I think the biggest risk is Sprott might corner the market for Uranium and that is not a good thing.



I though you were talking US, our role model.....


----------



## sptrawler

Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom​_(Updated April 2022)_


*The UK generates about 15% of its electricity from about 7 GW of nuclear capacity.*
*Most existing capacity is to be retired by the end of the decade, but the first of a new generation of nuclear plants is under construction.*
*Government plans call for up to 24 GW of new nuclear capacity by 2050 to provide about 25% of electricity.*
*The UK has implemented a thorough assessment process for new reactor designs and their siting.*
*The UK has privatized power generation and liberalized its electricity market, which together make major capital investments problematic.*


----------



## finicky

Skyharbour buys into Rio Tinto’s Russell Lake uranium project​








						Skyharbour buys into Rio Tinto’s Russell Lake uranium project
					

The Canadian explorer has secured an initial 51% stake in Russell Lake, located next to its Moore property in Saskatchewan.




					www.mining.com
				




Excerpt:
May 20

After years of depressed prices and halted production, the uranium market is experiencing a revival on supply worries steaming from sanctions against Russia’s state-owned atomic energy company, Rosatom.

Earlier this month, Cameco and Orano increased their stakes in the Cigar Lake uranium mine in northern Saskatchewan by buying Idemitsu Canada Resources’ 7.9% interest in the asset for C$187 million (about $144m).

Spot prices have doubled from lows of $28 per pound last year to $64 in April, motivating the reactivation of projects that were set aside after a 2011 earthquake and tsunami crippled Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Cameco is also restarting its McArthur River mine and Key Lake mill this year, which have been on care and maintenance since mid-2018. 

“Things are moving very quickly in our industry, and we’re seeing countries and companies turn to nuclear with an appetite that I’m not sure I’ve ever seen in my four decades in this business,” CEO Tim Gitzel said on a May 5 earnings call.

For years, Canada was the world’s largest uranium producer, accounting for about 22% of world output, but in 2009, was overtaken by Kazakhstan.


----------



## JohnDe

finicky said:


> ​
> After years of depressed prices and halted production, the uranium market is experiencing a revival




I've read that a few times over the past several years.


----------



## JohnDe

> Uranium futures fell to $48/lb in mid-May, the lowest in nearly three months as uncertainty in energy markets heightened volatility for nuclear fuel. Prices were pressured by recession fears amid worries that higher interest rates could dampen the demand for energy worldwide, exacerbating growth concerns in China due to strict Covid lockdowns that led uranium prices to sharply decline from 11-year highs in late April. Still, prices remain nearly 20% higher than levels before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as lingering concerns of sanctions against nuclear fuels led Western utilities to scrap for long-term contracts with alternative uranium converters and enrichers, well above their current capacity. As of 2020, Russia was responsible for 43% of the world’s uranium enrichment, by far the largest share of a single country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uranium - 2022 Data - 1988-2021 Historical - 2023 Forecast - Price - Quote - Chart
> 
> 
> Uranium futures fell to $48/lb in mid-May, the lowest in nearly three months as uncertainty in energy markets heightened volatility for nuclear fuel. Prices were pressured by recession fears amid worries that higher interest rates could dampen the demand for energy worldwide, exacerbating growth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tradingeconomics.com


----------



## Sean K

Uranium coming back due to the US stating that they need to source internally instead of using Russia. Biden is throwing $$ at it apparently. 

A timely post on YouTube.


----------



## Sean K

I wonder if this consolidation will result in a similar move after the last one from Sep-Mar.


----------



## JohnDe

Sean K said:


> I wonder if this consolidation will result in a similar move after the last one from Sep-Mar.
> 
> View attachment 143834
> 
> 
> View attachment 143833




Macquarie have some interest in  AURA ENERGY LIMITED, and have increased ownership.



> *Form 603 – Notice of initial substantial holder *
> 
> We enclose an updated notice of initial substantial holder for Aura Energy Limited (AEE.AX), which was initially filed on June 24th 2022.
> 
> The previous notice included an incorrect disclosure of voting power.
> 
> Macquarie Group Limited’s voting power was 5.12% when we became a substantial holder on 21 June 2022, not the originally disclosed 5.33%.


----------



## Stockbailx

Any concerns or interested into the outlook of Uranium in 2022, read this is what Analyst had to say from Uranium Investment News;



			https://invst.news/wp-json/inn/v1/user-reports?user_id=386799&dtd=127925&get=pdf&tkn=613e94602e36c2.40868342


----------



## peter2

Something's afoot in the uranium market. The uranium ETF - *URA* had a big up day yesterday. This induced buying in the ASX uranium stocks. I notice that the pre-market price for URA is up another 3% before the open. 



What's the gossip Watson?


----------



## frugal.rock

The watchlist today.
60% green, 40% flat, 0% red.


----------



## frugal.rock

peter2 said:


> What's the gossip Watson?



General energy scramble?
Dutton was banging on about it a couple of weeks ago?
That time of the year again...


----------



## peter2

The news that got the uranium sector jumping was about Japan restarting their nuclear power sector to stabilise their energy supply. POU jumps +10%.


----------



## frugal.rock

peter2 said:


> Something's afoot in the uranium market. The uranium ETF - *URA* had a big up day yesterday. This induced buying in the ASX uranium stocks. I notice that the pre-market price for URA is up another 3% before the open.



And it closed 11.3% up.


----------



## Sean K

Interesting slide in the SLX Annual Report Preso today regarding projected uranium prices. Things are still looking up for uranium and future producers under the current scheme of things.


----------



## frugal.rock

Today
75% greeen, 25% flat, 0% red.
Greens averaging near on 10% up. 
(Not all shown on screenshot)


----------



## rcw1

frugal.rock said:


> Today
> 75% greeen, 25% flat, 0% red.
> Greens averaging near on 10% up.
> (Not all shown on screenshot)
> 
> View attachment 145946



Good evening
ERA 8.16% gain at close 25/08/22.
rcw1 not holding.

Kind regards
rcw1


----------



## Sean K

frugal.rock said:


> Today
> 75% greeen, 25% flat, 0% red.
> Greens averaging near on 10% up.
> (Not all shown on screenshot)
> 
> View attachment 145946




Due to Japanese PM not just saying they are bringing all their current reactors back on line but going to build more.

Fingers crossed there's not an accident, or otherwise, with a nuclear plant in Ukraine in the meantime.


----------



## qldfrog

Sean K said:


> Due to Japanese PM not just saying they are bringing all their current reactors back on line but going to build more.
> 
> Fingers crossed there's not an accident, or otherwise, with a nuclear plant in Ukraine in the meantime.



True, forgot about that, and US & Kiev clown  would not only blame it on Putin, but it would nailed the coffin on EU forever.
I will get out of my uranium exposure tonight.


----------



## Sean K

Is this why uranium companies popped?


----------



## qldfrog

qldfrog said:


> True, forgot about that, and US & Kiev clown  would not only blame it on Putin, but it would nailed the coffin on EU forever.
> I will get out of my uranium exposure tonight.



I tightened SL and went out of my US uranium on the night.. probably not a wise move


----------



## sptrawler

Sean K said:


> Is this why uranium companies popped?
> 
> View attachment 146122
> 
> View attachment 146123



When they get SMR's past all the safety regulators, the sky is the limit, well not literally.
It is a bit like the E.V's 10 years ago, batteries were rubbish, range was rubbish, now everyone wants one.
Once the reactors are deployed, are proven to be  impervious to earthquakes, it will only be a matter of time before they become the answer to the clean energy problem IMO.


----------



## JohnDe

France to restart all nuclear reactors by winter amid energy crunch​France’s minister for energy transition said on September 2 that French electricity giant EDF has committed to restart all its nuclear reactors by this winter to help the country through the broad energy crisis aggravated by the war in Ukraine.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I would be all in favour of more nuclear reactors in Australia if they built them in places like Bowral or the Mornington Peninsula. 

I am a great believer in Nuclear Power as clean energy. 

gg


----------



## Tyre Kicker

Only a matter of time if the Aus gov is truly serious about reducing emissions.


----------



## noirua

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would be all in favour of more nuclear reactors in Australia if they built them in places like Bowral or the Mornington Peninsula.
> 
> I am a great believer in Nuclear Power as clean energy.
> 
> gg



Whilst selling as much coal as possible to China and others - that makes sense!? It is Chinese companies that own a lot of coal in the ground in Australia so that will be their fault - and tax can be used for nuclear reactors if companies like Yancoal start paying much: Nothing from 2014 to 2020. So everything will be hunky dory except it takes about 10 years to get a nuclear plant fully onstream.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

noirua said:


> Whilst selling as much coal as possible to China and others - that makes sense!? It is Chinese companies that own a lot of coal in the ground in Australia so that will be their fault - and tax can be used for nuclear reactors if companies like Yancoal start paying much: Nothing from 2014 to 2020. So everything will be hunky dory except it takes about 10 years to get a nuclear plant fully onstream.





Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would be all in favour of more nuclear reactors in Australia if they built them in places like Bowral or the Mornington Peninsula.
> 
> I am a great believer in Nuclear Power as clean energy.
> 
> gg



Well we need to start sometime. 

The elite suburbs and localities who push for greener, cleaner alternatives such as Rose Bay and The Dandenong Ranges need to lead with action by seeking nuclear reactors in their suburbs. 

This will lead to a wider acceptance of nuclear provided power by the rest of us non-upper-middle bogan class elsewhere in Australia. 

If every elite suburb in the metropolitan areas pitched in we may not even need to build them in the regions.

gg


----------



## Sean K

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would be all in favour of more nuclear reactors in Australia if they built them in places like Bowral or the Mornington Peninsula.
> 
> I am a great believer in Nuclear Power as clean energy.
> 
> gg




On the edge of Lake Ross would be a good spot too. Would power everything north of Rockvegas.


----------



## frugal.rock

I hear the next reactor will be built out the back of the Ross Island Hotel. 😘🤨

Up Flag




Closer in. Getting nearer the pointy end.


----------



## noirua

Rick Rule Makes the Case for Uranium
Premiered Oct 24, 2022
Https://youtu.be/PMWMFugffl4
2 months ago - Https://youtu.be/kymCXishsmY​


----------

