# Uranium



## crackaton (23 April 2006)

nergy for the Next Billion Years
Sean Brodrick
Money and Markets
April 19th, 2006

Now that China and Australia have signed a landmark agreement on uranium, where do we go from here?

Further than most men can dream!

This one uranium deal is part of a much larger trade package between the two countries. And it's just the first deal of many.

Heck, signing the deal was quick and easy. Overcoming today's acute shortages of uranium is going to be slow and tough. In fact, Australia probably won't be actually shipping uranium ore to China until 2008, according to Aussie Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane.

"Australia is already fully committed in terms of uranium production through until about 2008, bearing in mind that the signing of this agreement means that this is really only the start of the process," he said. "From there we need to move forward."

In other words,

It's still very early in the game, and you can still get in close to the ground floor of Australia's uranium boom.

Here are just some of the things I see happening in the near - and not-so-near - future ...

A New Chinese "Gold" Rush in Australia?

Last week, I told you how Chinese miners came to Australia in the 1800s for the great gold rush. Now, it's going to happen again, but on a far greater scale.

This time, instead of laborers, they will be investors. Instead of individuals, you will see the advent of big, highly capitalized companies.

And this time, instead of a rush into gold, the Chinese will be scrambling after the stocks of varied Australian resource companies, especially uranium explorers.

Never forget: Australia sits on between 30% and 40% of the world's known uranium resources.

And the Chinese have been actively on the prowl for foreign natural resource companies.

Outside of U.S. Treasuries, do you know where China has been putting most of its overseas investments?

Not in Japan or Thailand or anywhere in Asia. It's Latin America. Why? For two reasons:

First, because China is so utterly committed to buying up available resources of copper, nickel and more.

And second, because natural resources in Australia, despite its relative proximity to China, were mostly out of reach ... until now, that is.

Until the recent agreement was signed, Australia was not able to export its uranium resources to China. Now, with the new agreement in place, they're likely to start playing catch-up, driving the revenues, profits and shares of Australian mining companies through the roof.

Uranium mines are the first targets. But once they've got those secured, you can bet Chinese companies will be giving other Australian resources companies the once over as well - copper, gold, nickel, zinc and more. So don't be surprised if this lights a fire under other undervalued Australian miners in a big hurry.

A New Political Wind Is Blowing

The Labor Party in Australia has a history of being anti-nuke.

So when it ran the Federal government, it maintained a very restrictive "Three Mines Policy" - only three uranium mines allowed to be open at a time.

Now, Labor has long been out of power on the Federal level with the federal law already in the dustbin of history.

Labor still governs in three potentially important Australian states - Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland - but even there, anti-nuke sentiment is beginning to waver.

Already, South Australian Premier Mike Rann and Labor's resources spokesman Martin Ferguson have both expressed the view that the Three Mines Policy needs to be overhauled.

And already, a major force is pushing Australia's Labor party to back off from its anti-nuke platform: Labor itself!

You see, mine workers make very good money. A pipe fitter at the Olympic Dam mine (a copper-uranium mine owned by BHP) can make (AUS) $80,000 a year. So if Labor is indeed the party of labor, it's going to come around to what workers care about most - providing a good living for their families - and it will give its old policy the boot.

That not-so-subtle change will shift Australia's mines into overdrive.

Backdoor Sales to India Could Dramatically Boost Uranium Demand

Officially speaking, Australian uranium sales to India are taboo because India has failed to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But I suspect India's demand for uranium will be so intense ... and Australia's ability to supply it will be so critical ... even the NPT is a hurdle that's likely to be overcome in one way or another.

Here's the NPT deal in a nutshell:

(A) The Big Five nuclear powers - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China - got official recognition as established nuke countries. But they agreed to negotiate in good faith toward disarmament.

(B) In exchange, the non-nuclear states promised not to develop their own nuclear weapons. But they got the right to buy nuclear technology for power generation.

OK. That works ... provided no one cheats or tries an end run.

Problem: More and more countries are doing both.

Lo and behold, two Australian uranium producers recently struck deals to sell uranium to a Taiwanese electricity company. And guess what: Taiwan is not a signatory to the NPT. It used to be, but no longer is recognized as a sovereign state with a valid signature.

How are the companies getting around this hurdle? By selling to the U.S., which will then sell to Taiwan.

And hey - didn't President Bush just promise a nuclear technology deal with India?

Why, yes he did! The administration wants to woo India away from Iran and to accelerate India's rise as a regional counterweight to China.

And hey - didn't President Bush just promise a nuclear technology deal with India? Why, yes he did! The administration wants to woo India away from Iran and to accelerate India's rise as a regional counterweight to China.


----------



## crackaton (23 April 2006)

The bottom line is that India desperately needs nuclear fuel for its existing reactors and for its ambitious nuclear plant construction program.

So put it all together, and here's the wink-wink-nudge-nudge picture that emerges: Australian companies sell MORE uranium to the U.S. or other countries. They then resell it to India on the condition that it's used only for nuclear reactors.

And even if I'm wrong - even if not one single pound of Australian uranium ore winds up in Indian nuclear plants - the growing demand from India will still push up the price of uranium on the world market, and that will still boost the revenues that pour into the coffers of Australian companies.

Big Jumps in Revenues Now in the Pipeline

Right now, new uranium contracts are being signed for over $40 per pound. But most outstanding contracts were signed at much lower price levels, before the recent run-up. So there's a time lag before the higher prices makes it down the pipeline.

For example, BHP's uranium production from Olympic Dam is being delivered under contracts that are good at least until 2008 - contracts that still price uranium in the mid-teens (U.S. dollars).

With each month that passes, though, old uranium contracts are coming up for renewal. And that's when uranium producers will really start to reap the rewards of price increases that have already occurred - not to mention those that are bound to come long into the future.

The facts:

Today there are 441 operational nuclear power reactors around the world. Their demand for uranium fuel is enormous.
Total global uranium consumption was estimated at 176.3 million pounds in 2005. Of that, only 92.6 million pounds, or 47%, was supplied directly from mining. The rest came from stockpiles, and those stockpiles are dwindling fast.
Demand is set to skyrocket! According to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 130 new nuclear power plants are either being built or are in the planning stages. Some analysts put the number of planned reactors as high as 160!
As a result, by 2015, demand for uranium will likely hit an astounding 212 million pounds per year.

Add it all up, and you're looking at uranium shortages for at least the next decade.

No Such Thing as a "Sure Bet!" But the Need to Replenish Uranium Stockpiles Should Help Overcome Any Blips

Are there risks? Of course.

New nuclear plants can't be built overnight. Meanwhile, there are new mines coming online this year and next. So, as in any market, don't expect prices to go straight up, and don't ever come away with the impression that uranium investments are a sure bet.

But here's the key reason I think any price dips will be mere blips: Stockpiles are being depleted rapidly.

With so many new nuclear power plants planned or already in construction, I expect all prudent, forward-looking governments will be aggressively stockpiling uranium. That alone should help counter virtually any temporary slack that may crop up in the supply/demand squeeze.

Another risk: Nuclear plants have a bad reputation, and anti-nuke forces are not dead.

But that, too, is changing rapidly for a very simple reason: Most environmentalists are now far more concerned about global warming, and they now realize nuclear power is the only viable way to generate enough clean power in time to make a difference.

That's why I think nuclear is going to become the energy source of choice for decades to come.

New-generation nuclear plants are safer.

Nuclear energy produces virtually zero greenhouse gasses.

And considering the fact that the ice and glaciers in polar regions are melting a lot faster than anyone expected, that could be the critical factor breaking the political logjam ... creating a broad consensus to move forward ... and opening the dikes to a flood of profits for early investors.

Already, France gets 78% of its power from nuclear plants.

And while the U.S. gets a far smaller share of its power from nukes - about 20% - in sheer wattage terms, the U.S. is the world's largest generator of nuclear power, with 103 plants producing 780.4 million megawatts last year.

In contrast, China produces so little nuclear power it barely registers. But it plans to change that - and fast. Beijing's target is to more than quintuple its nuclear capacity - by 36,000 megawatts - by 2020. And still, nuclear power would only cover 4% of China's needs!

We know that "Peak Oil" - the eventual decline of the earth's crude oil production due to finite supplies - is looming. And then we'll likely see Peak Natural Gas. Meanwhile, the other alternative energy technologies of tomorrow - while promising - are still mostly in the pipe dream stage.

James Dines, an acknowledged expert on uranium, recently wrote that "there is enough uranium for a billion years using breeder reactors."

I think a billion years from now our descendants will have other things to worry about. But I also think that, in the near future, America will be exploring the nuclear option a lot more thoroughly.

Your Own Nuclear Options

There aren't a lot of uranium plays in the U.S. - most of the good ones are in Canada or Australia.

When I wrote about this topic on March 22, I told you about USEC Inc. (USU) the world's leading supplier of low-enriched uranium, a critical component in the production of nuclear fuel for reactors to produce electricity.

USEC is up 11% in less than a month, and it could go much higher. It's still a good buy in my book.

But it pales compared to the red-hot opportunities in Australia.



Yours for trading profits,

Sean Brodrick
Email: SBrodrick@weissinc.com

For more information and archived issues, visit http://www.moneyandmarkets.com.

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/brodrick/brodrick041906.html

Sorry about the long posts guys, but worth a read in my opinion. cheers


----------



## jtb (20 October 2007)

Old thread I know, but here's a snippet from a unit I'm doing atm.
Bit an eye opener.......


----------



## noirua (18 February 2021)

18 February 2021
With the world embracing renewable energy, nuclear power will see substantially more use in energy grids around the world, and with it, bring up uranium prices and uranium stocks, said Peter Grandich, founder of Peter Grandich & Co.


----------



## sptrawler (4 January 2022)

Germany may be closing their nuclear power stations, that doesn't mean everyone else will follow suit.









						EU labels nuclear power ‘green’, Germany calls it dangerous
					

The European Union waited until New Year’s Eve to release divisive proposals for nuclear energy and natural gas projects.




					www.smh.com.au


----------



## Sean K (4 January 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Germany may be closing their nuclear power stations, that doesn't mean everyone else will follow suit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think Germany is the only country intending to completely shut down - based one one person dying at Fukushima. Big clean up but I can't see the risk to Germany's reactors the same as Japanese. Does Germany suffer from tidal waves and have poor safety measures at their plants? I think there's been another agenda in Germany to closing their plants.


----------



## qldfrog (4 January 2022)

Sean K said:


> I think Germany is the only country intending to completely shut down - based one one person dying at Fukushima. Big clean up but I can't see the risk to Germany's reactors the same as Japanese. Does Germany suffer from tidal waves and have poor safety measures at their plants? I think there's been another agenda in Germany to closing their plants.



Greenpeace...I am personnaly opposed to Nuclear  using uranium due to waste issues whereas a thorium would be a reasonable alternative, pending fusion;
About agenda, it is clear Nuclear is Nuke..whatever way you turn it;
once you have reactors, you can have nukes...
Does the US, or Russia or even France Poland wants to see Germany with nukes in the next 50 years? so you got your answer.
Obviously, we all know public opinion is not influenced by foreign agents and NGO are independent....

NEVER even dissociate power plant with Nuke and so ability of a country to not be bullied around;
Just think about this and why Australia while a major producer has no nuclear plant..of any sizable size..I know we have a toy one


----------



## sptrawler (4 January 2022)

Sean K said:


> I think Germany is the only country intending to completely shut down - based one one person dying at Fukushima. Big clean up but I can't see the risk to Germany's reactors the same as Japanese. Does Germany suffer from tidal waves and have poor safety measures at their plants? I think there's been another agenda in Germany to closing their plants.



My guess is Germany will rely on importing power or fuel from other EU states, from memory they recently signed a deal with Norway.
The problem with that is, it only works until the Country that is supplying the power, requires it for its own consumption.
If it ends up that Germany can't supply enough power to run the Country, decisions can be reversed, with this transition to renewables nothing is set in stone IMO, it is all a wish and a prayer driven by good intentions at the moment.
The other thing is, everyone says technology will improve renewables, batteries, EVs etc, do people think nuclear technology won't advance also?
If SMR eventuate where a plant the size of a service station can supply the equivalent power as a 300 hectare solar farm and do it safely 24/7 for 70 years, I think it will be included in the mix, especially in countries that are land or climate poor for renewables


----------



## Trader X (4 January 2022)

qldfrog said:


> I am personally opposed to Nuclear using uranium due to waste issues whereas a thorium would be a reasonable alternative, pending fusion...



China seems the only country with the foresight to deploy much safer, lower waste molten salt thorium reactors for energy independence. High pressure uranium reactors should be phased out in favor of MSR tech but of course the word nuclear is now cursed for power generation.  Fusion is a dream that is unlikely to ever become a commercial reality and renewables only work as baseload if you invest billions into energy storage.  Tesla's huge investment into its energy business is counting on storage driving future revenue growth.


----------



## qldfrog (4 January 2022)

Trader X said:


> China seems the only country with the foresight to deploy much safer, lower waste molten salt thorium reactors for energy independence. High pressure uranium reactors should be phased out in favor of MSR tech but of course the word nuclear is now cursed for power generation.  Fusion is a dream that is unlikely to ever become a commercial reality and renewables only work as baseload if you invest billions into energy storage.  Tesla's huge investment into its energy business is counting on storage driving future revenue growth.



India is also looking for thorium..but as others inc China, they also need the Uranium for nukes so for the time being...
I actually believe fusion is doable but it is not a priority by the power in place
We might see progress there from Japan in the coming years when they will need to recover supply independence vs China threat
Time will tell.in the meantime plenty of people keen to get nukes and so Green power narrative


----------



## sptrawler (6 January 2022)

Bill Gates, Mitsubishi and the Japanese Govt to build a nuclear power station in the U.S, the U.S Govt to help fund it.









						Gates teams with Japan to build $5.5 billion nuclear reactor
					

The deal was brokered after similar plans to team with China were derailed when Donald Trump's administration restricted nuclear deals with China.




					au.finance.yahoo.com


----------



## Trader X (6 January 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Bill Gates, Mitsubishi and the Japanese Govt to build a nuclear power station in the U.S, the U.S Govt to help fund it.



Finally a molten salt reactor gets the green light for construction in the U.S.  Hope this project is successful in demonstrating MSR tech is the way forward for nuclear power generation.  Of course, no matter how successful, we will never see one built in AUS because the greens and labor won't support nuclear power generation regardless of its merits.

https://natriumpower.com


----------



## sptrawler (6 January 2022)

Trader X said:


> Finally a molten salt reactor gets the green light for construction in the U.S.  Hope this project is successful in demonstrating MSR tech is the way forward for nuclear power generation.  Of course, no matter how successful, we will never see one built in AUS because the greens and labor won't support nuclear power generation regardless of its merits.
> 
> https://natriumpower.com



IMO eventually the pressure to increase the H2 production, above what is doable with renewables, will force everyone's hand.


----------



## Sean K (10 January 2022)

The troubles in Kazakhstan are probably going to give the POU a bit of a jolt in the short term.









						Kazakhstan unrest: Internet returns to Almaty following a five day outage
					

Days of violent anti-government protests saw nearly 8,000 people detained, officials say.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## peter2 (10 February 2022)

Big day for uranium overnight in the US. I shouldn't have to mention that *CCJ* - Cameco had a huge day also.


----------



## Sean K (10 February 2022)

This was filmed a few days ago but was just loaded up today. Good timing.


----------



## Sean K (12 February 2022)

Some charts to consider from various sources.


----------



## frugal.rock (12 February 2022)

Regardless of forecasts... it's only going to take 1 more "event" to undo the whole industry for a long time. Probably not a matter of if, but when...









						Counterfeit parts found in U.S. nuclear plants -inspector general
					

Counterfeit parts have been discovered in U.S. nuclear plants, potentially increasing the risk of a safety failure, the inspector general of the federal nuclear industry regulator said in a report released on Thursday.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## qldfrog (12 February 2022)

frugal.rock said:


> Regardless of forecasts... it's only going to take 1 more "event" to undo the whole industry for a long time. Probably not a matter of if, but when...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was hinting at this in @peter2  thread.
New reactors will take decades to start being online and needing fuel, old reactors will have to close,, or will breakdown and have lower use.
Worst case scenario, one of these oldies will fail with a boom and uranium will go backward 20y.in the meantime thorium or fusion could take over.
By all means, take the short term trades etc but investing in a uranium junior today and expectations of millions in 5 years? Good luck


----------



## Sean K (13 February 2022)

I agree @frugal.rock and @qldfrog but the fear is unfounded. For eg, Fukushima killed just one person due to the actual nuclear accident. Chernobyl, about 30. There is a clean up issue with these incidents, but so does everything else. God knows where all those toxic mirrors and bird choppers are going to go when they get decommissioned. The biggest problem with nuclear is that people have been brainwashed into thinking nuclear = bomb.


----------



## qldfrog (13 February 2022)

Sean K said:


> I agree @frugal.rock and @qldfrog but the fear is unfounded. For eg, Fukushima killed just one person due to the actual nuclear accident. Chernobyl, about 30. There is a clean up issue with these incidents, but so does everything else. God knows where all those toxic mirrors and bird choppers are going to go when they get decommissioned. The biggest problem with nuclear is that people have been brainwashed into thinking nuclear = bomb.
> 
> View attachment 137451



We can say the same with supposedly co2 fuelled global warming:
 narratives and propaganda fuels opinion and then decision making..so actors act on the narrative to gain their objectives.
In that case, uranium is on the bad end.
One thing is actually true uranium equal bombs.
With no need for A bombs, thorium reactors would be everywhere.
So if you want high uranium price, look at rearmament trends, not the side play of nuclear power plants imho
Look how 20 years of old missiles decommissioning was enough to nearly bankrupt uranium mining.
Look at growing arsenals in China India Pakistan etc and the old Russia USA foes as to where uranium miners will gain $ from imho.
Sadly uranium i think has a bright mid term future😊


----------



## Sean K (13 February 2022)

qldfrog said:


> We can say the same with supposedly co2 fuelled global warming:
> narratives and propaganda fuels opinion and then decision making..so actors act on the narrative to gain their objectives.
> In that case, uranium is on the bad end.
> One thing is actually true uranium equal bombs.
> ...




This is about a five year play for me. By that time, POU should be settled in the zone for sustained longer term nuclear power generation (70-90 bucks a pound - inflation adjusted) with a hundred or so new plants being developed and brought on line. Current mothballed plants will be operating and advanced explorers/developers will be building plants with long term contracts in place. This will probably be the peak of their market caps/valuations and time to move on. Fingers crossed no accidents between now and then.


----------



## Trader X (13 February 2022)

Sean K said:


> I agree @frugal.rock and @qldfrog but the fear is unfounded. For eg, Fukushima killed just one person due to the actual nuclear accident.



The toxic legacy of Fukushima extends far beyond the death of just one person.  The environmental pollution/damage was extensive, long lasting and still not fully understood.  Still, it was 1960's nuclear power plant technology that's archaic and vastly inferior to modern reactor designs that no longer take "decades to build".  The fear of nuclear power is unfounded but deeply instilled in the minds of so many that, even though the issues around safety and waste have been improved by orders of magnitude, fear still prevails over reasoned analysis in the minds of the general public.  As demonstrated by your graphs, the supply/demand imbalance should see Uranium prices rise significantly over coming years.


----------



## qldfrog (13 February 2022)

Trader X said:


> The toxic legacy of Fukushima extends far beyond the death of just one person.  The environmental pollution/damage was extensive, long lasting and still not fully understood.  Still, it was 1960's nuclear power plant technology that's archaic and vastly inferior to modern reactor designs that no longer take "decades to build".  The fear of nuclear power is unfounded but deeply instilled in the minds of so many that, even though the issues around safety and waste have been improved by orders of magnitude, fear still prevails over reasoned analysis in the minds of the general public.  As demonstrated by your graphs, the supply/demand imbalance should see Uranium prices rise significantly over coming years.



Modern reactor design not taking decades to build?
It takes 5y in qld to build a bridge, the Brisbane to sunshine coast freeway 2 to 3 lanes has been going on for now a decade..
While your statement would be valid in China or efficient economies, in the west with red and green tape, if you can go from 'we decide to build' to 'is on line' in less than a decade, you would be a hero.


----------



## Sean K (13 February 2022)

qldfrog said:


> Modern reactor design not taking decades to build?
> It takes 5y in qld to build a bridge, the Brisbane to sunshine coast freeway 2 to 3 lanes has been going on for now a decade..
> While your statement would be valid in China or efficient economies, in the west with red and green tape, if you can go from 'we decide to build' to 'is on line' in less than a decade, you would be a hero.




It’s quite incredible how inefficient our construction sector is from concept to product. There’s a bunch of reasons for this inbuilt into the sector now. Red and green tape summarizes it. Plus, workforce, motivation and incentive. If we were in a WW situation, things would be being built rather quickly.


----------



## qldfrog (13 February 2022)

Sean K said:


> It’s quite incredible how inefficient our construction sector is from concept to product. There’s a bunch of reasons for this inbuilt into the sector now. Red and green tape summarizes it. Plus, workforce, motivation and incentive. If we were in a WW situation, things would be being built rather quickly.



Hum not so sure, you do not learn efficiency that quickly.most of the Australian workforce is born and bred here.and you learn efficiency mostly by example and experience


----------



## Trader X (13 February 2022)

qldfrog said:


> Modern reactor design not taking decades to build?



Well yes, it's a fact.  Variables like scale, generation capacity and technology choice factor into construction time.  How long it takes an unskilled, unionized Australian workforce to build and commission a reactor is not really that relevant.  We will likely never get one approved here.

Global nuclear reactor construction time 1981-2020​Published by Statista Research Department, Jan 11, 2022
Median construction time required for nuclear reactors worldwide oscillated from around 83 months to 84 months, from 1981 to 2020 respectively. During the period in consideration, the longest median construction time for nuclear reactors was between 1996 and 2000, at 120 months, while the shortest was from 2001 to 2005, at about 57.5 months.


----------



## Sean K (13 February 2022)

Trader X said:


> Well yes, it's a fact.  Variables like scale, generation capacity and technology choice factor into construction time.  How long it takes an unskilled, unionized Australian workforce to build and commission a reactor is not really that relevant.  We will likely never get one approved here.
> 
> Global nuclear reactor construction time 1981-2020​Published by Statista Research Department, Jan 11, 2022
> Median construction time required for nuclear reactors worldwide oscillated from around 83 months to 84 months, from 1981 to 2020 respectively. During the period in consideration, the longest median construction time for nuclear reactors was between 1996 and 2000, at 120 months, while the shortest was from 2001 to 2005, at about 57.5 months.




Maybe SMRs will solve all this.


----------



## Trader X (13 February 2022)

Sean K said:


> Maybe SMRs will solve all this.



Yes, seeing estimates of 3-5 years for building SMRs and they have many advantages over large reactor projects.  Largely address many of the key objections raised by anti-nuclear critics.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs


----------



## qldfrog (13 February 2022)

Trader X said:


> Well yes, it's a fact.  Variables like scale, generation capacity and technology choice factor into construction time.  How long it takes an unskilled, unionized Australian workforce to build and commission a reactor is not really that relevant.  We will likely never get one approved here.
> 
> Global nuclear reactor construction time 1981-2020​Published by Statista Research Department, Jan 11, 2022
> Median construction time required for nuclear reactors worldwide oscillated from around 83 months to 84 months, from 1981 to 2020 respectively. During the period in consideration, the longest median construction time for nuclear reactors was between 1996 and 2000, at 120 months, while the shortest was from 2001 to 2005, at about 57.5 months.



Yes comparing building time in the west in the 1980 to China in 2020?
Anywhere in the west, if you start from scratch, it is a decade long project not to pour concrete but to go thru seismic and soil studies env and social impacts etc.
Adding a reactor to an existing site is the fast and easier way..but only for established nuclear countries.
Even if you bring it in a boat ready to go, it will take years in the west to be allowed to start and plug it.
Anyway, once blackout becomes commonplace, the urgency might fasten things in some countries.
Swapping co2 for nuclear waste..ROL


----------



## Sean K (13 February 2022)

qldfrog said:


> Swapping co2 for nuclear waste..ROL




Yes, but there's solutions for the nuclear waste, it's juts NIMBY stopping it.


----------



## qldfrog (13 February 2022)

Sean K said:


> Yes, but there's solutions for the nuclear waste, it's juts NIMBY stopping it.



Sean, i graduated from a french "institute of matter and ionisation".while i did not specialised in nuclear energy, i am probably more aware than most Australian educated scientists of any nuclear tech matter.i visited nuclear power plants and La hague with is the waste processing plant treating much of nuclear waste worlwide, i was also living less than 50km from a waste burial site.
Trust me on that one, we still have NOT solved nuclear waste.
Concentrated waste are enclosed into glass cube..i obviously take great shorcuts here and then put into gigantic cooling swimming pool with ultra pure water..
These waste have half lives in the thousands of yera..aka they will be half as dangerous as now in a couple of thousand years.
If you or anyone sane can say that for the next couple of years, these poool will be kept running, then waste issue is solved...
Just facts..i am not against nuclear , it is just not economical with fission..due to waste costs, you get cheap energy and send the dismantling bill to your kids.
And while it is safe..plutonium is scary as a poison, not for radioactivity, it is not a solution in my opinion.
Thorium and fusion are valid and achievable in my view nuclear solution.thorium can be done now, fusion is getting great leaps forwards lately


----------



## qldfrog (13 February 2022)

qldfrog said:


> Sean, i graduated from a french "institute of matter and ionisation".while i did not specialised in nuclear energy, i am probably more aware than most Australian educated scientists of any nuclear tech matter.i visited nuclear power plants and La hague with is the waste processing plant treating much of nyclear wadte worlwide, i was also leaving kess than 50km from a waste burial site.
> Trust me on that one, we still have NOT solved nuclear waste.
> Concentrated waste are enclosed into glass cube..i obviously take great shorcuts here and then put into gigantic cooling swimming pool with ultra pure water..
> These waste have half lives in the thousands of yera..aka they will be half as dangerous as now in a couple of thousand years.
> ...



Hope this gives my not uninformed view.
Investment wise, play the narrative.the market has long lost views of facts so week trades of uranium stocks is fine😊


----------



## Sean K (13 February 2022)

qldfrog said:


> Sean, i graduated from a french "institute of matter and ionisation".while i did not specialised in nuclear energy, i am probably more aware than most Australian educated scientists of any nuclear tech matter.i visited nuclear power plants and La hague with is the waste processing plant treating much of nuclear waste worlwide, i was also living less than 50km from a waste burial site.
> Trust me on that one, we still have NOT solved nuclear waste.
> Concentrated waste are enclosed into glass cube..i obviously take great shorcuts here and then put into gigantic cooling swimming pool with ultra pure water..
> These waste have half lives in the thousands of yera..aka they will be half as dangerous as now in a couple of thousand years.
> ...




You don't think Onkalo could be replicated in the SA desert?


----------



## qldfrog (13 February 2022)

Sean K said:


> You don't think Onkalo could be replicated in the SA desert?



Sure, the real issue is the small amount of crap which is so "hot" that if left uncooled it will melt and vitrify and slowly but surely sink down toward the earth core leaving being a trail of incredibly radiative contamination.
The chinese syndrome from the 1980s movie😊
There is a trial to reuse some of these "condensed" leftovers, spent fuel rods etc with surgenerators
 EPR




__





						European Pressurized Reactor (EPR)
					





					large.stanford.edu
				



So less waste etc..but France has been at it for decades and not really going that well, they are also inherently instable in my opinion so while a standard reactor would not turn into a proper A bomb, just a wet radiactive firework, an EPR under failure might descend into a nice mushroomy explosion.
My knowledge is getting dated as i obviously did not do anything related here in oz, but i kept interest in tha domain.not aware of fundamental breakthrough in either implementation or design/concept .
so still dangerous, expensive and unless you want to produce nukes, or for specific purpose: ice breakers, submarines, not really worthwhile $.
 wise
Should we get nuclear power plant here? Not when we have plenty of gas, no fresh water for cooling and no expertise and plenty of Homer Simpson
.unless we want our own nukes?
Well on the last point, i would prefer in 2022  we had a few nukes onboard missiles instead of buying billions of obsolete technologies like F35... LOL and submarines....
Next we will buy horse armour for our cavalry and muskets
Have all a great week
None of the above will influence price of uranium next year😁


----------



## frugal.rock (13 February 2022)

qldfrog said:


> fusion is getting great leaps forwards lately



3 days ago









						Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
					

A lab in Oxfordshire takes a big step towards harnessing the energy source of the stars.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 February 2022)

qldfrog said:


> New reactors will take decades to start being online and needing fuel, old reactors will have to close,, or will breakdown and have lower use.



Unplanned closures do happen.

As a real nuclear example that closed unexpectedly but without a dramatic incident, Dungeness B power station in the UK.

September 2018 both units were shut down for repairs and substantial work did get underway.

June 2021 the owner announced that the plant was now permanently closed, effective immediately (well, effective almost 3 years prior in practice), would never return to operation and would instead more immediately to defueling and decommissioning which is now in progress.

For a non-nuclear example here in Australia, Hunter Valley gas turbines.

Last operation was in early 2020 followed by an outage for repairs.

In October 2021 the owners submitted the relevant paperwork to formally close the plant on the grounds that repairs and returning to service had turned out to be uneconomic. Permission was granted to officially close on 16 December 2021 and the facility was indeed officially closed at midnight 31 December 2021. That's the "official" closure but in practice it last ran in early 2020, hasn't operated since and will not operate again.

Plenty more examples like that where either a planned inspection or work to fix some fault finds a major problem that's simply uneconomic to repair given the age and remaining life expectancy of the facility or it's old and being "run into the ground" until the next major maintenance is required then it's game over. 

That's without there needing to be any kind of major incident although that can of course also happen - plenty of examples of that, thankfully mostly with non-nuclear facilities.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 February 2022)

frugal.rock said:


> Regardless of forecasts... it's only going to take 1 more "event" to undo the whole industry for a long time. Probably not a matter of if, but when...



The key thing to never forget about anything nuclear is that whilst you may be investing in a listed company with a CEO and board running it, in practically all circumstances the real boss carries the title of President or Prime Minister.

Note who's making announcements in France at the moment. It's Emmanuel Macron planning to build new reactors, it's not EDF or a private company making announcements. Much the same occurs in most places.

The very nature of the nuclear industry, being reliant on government funding in most circumstances, means it's inextricably tied to politics.


----------



## qldfrog (14 February 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> The key thing to never forget about anything nuclear is that whilst you may be investing in a listed company with a CEO and board running it, in practically all circumstances the real boss carries the title of President or Prime Minister.
> 
> Note who's making announcements in France at the moment. It's Emmanuel Macron planning to build new reactors, it's not EDF or a private company making announcements. Much the same occurs in most places.
> 
> The very nature of the nuclear industry, being reliant on government funding in most circumstances, means it's inextricably tied to politics.



And this has implication for our miners as for example, uranium mining in west subsaharian africa by french company..partly state iwned is behind french troups deployed there..the only reason. Uranium and gov. are indeed closely linked


----------



## Sean K (27 February 2022)

Uranium stocks increased on Thursday last week for no apparent reason. No move in POU at the time and no general market announcements. I put it down to Russia/Ukraine and an assumption Russia will eventually try to bring Kazakhstan back into the fold. But then Friday POU rose to a level where it’s tempting a break through a previous high and perhaps this consolidation pattern. Hopefully the break from this flag is up. Most ASX uranium juniors way off their highs from the Sep run, which was a bit nuts. Perhaps a buying opportunity now for those who believe in the narrative.

The daily summary on Trading Economics is a little bearish though:


----------



## Sean K (2 March 2022)

Looks like it’s breaking up, if not already. Time to top up on U stocks on the cheaper side may have passed. More 10% + gains yesterday.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 March 2022)

I am pretty that Uranium has come out of slumber and is the next hot thing. Putting money into it.


----------



## Ann (21 March 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> I am pretty that Uranium has come out of slumber and is the next hot thing. Putting money into it.



As have I Knobby, AGE, PDN, DYL and PEN so far.


_Uranium recently emerged out of a multi-year bear market following oversupply and negative sentiment towards the energy material after the Fukushima disaster in 2011._
_After grinding around low US$20/lb for a number of years, prices broke out with conviction, surging to US$50/lb in September, a fresh 9-year high.
Headlining the turnaround was Sprott Asset Management and its Canadian-listed Physical Uranium Trust. The fund, which launched in July, has been aggressively buying uranium off the spot market, putting it into storage and tightening supply. By October, the fund had amassed 30 million pounds.
By comparison, total spot volume for 2020 sat at just 92.2 million pounds. Another giant, that is the world’s largest uranium producer, Kazatomprom is on the verge of launching its own fund. Its fund will hold physical uranium as a long-term investment, with plans to raise up to US$500 million from institutional or private investors._
_Alongside a flow of funds, nuclear energy is expected to play a pivotal role in the world’s transition towards net zero emissions. Major economies such as the UK have said nuclear will be “at the heart” of its decarbonisation strategy. Similarly, Japan has called out nuclear reactor restarts as “key” in achieving its green energy targets._

Source:   https://www.marketindex.com.au/commodities/uranium

If you scroll down in the above link, there is a long list of companies involved in Uranium listed on the ASX

This is the full chart for the aforementioned Physical Uranium Trust, it was only listed back in July 2021


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 March 2022)

Thanks @Knobby22 and @Ann 

I fear a double top on that chart and I am told that Fukushima Prefecture is shaking again and even though it is not a risk it may affect sentiment. 

Germany hopefully will get rid of it's silly green sentiments and allow more gas/oil, but I believe Nuclear may be a stretch for Europe given their proximity to Vladimir Vladimirovich. 

All the best with trading Uranium though, sometimes being contrarian can pay off, or in this case following the trend. 

gg


----------



## Ann (21 March 2022)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I fear a double top on that chart and I am told that Fukushima Prefecture is shaking again and even though it is not a risk it may affect sentiment.



Well if the Russians can start fires and threaten to bomb Ukrainian Nuclear plants and the uranium stocks barely miss a beat then I reckon it can take a bit of shaking Fukushima. Let's see what happens with the double top on the chart, many may just see it as a buying op. Who knows, not me! 

Edit: I believe Germany is now re-thinking the closure of their nuclear plants.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 March 2022)

Ann said:


> Well if the Russians can start fires and threaten to bomb Ukrainian Nuclear plants and the uranium stocks barely miss a beat then I reckon it can take a bit of shaking Fukushima. Let's see what happens with the double top on the chart, many may just see it as a buying op. Who knows, not me!



Agree totally. 

Who knows. It's a volatile situation. 

I'll be the first to congratulate both of you if it comes off and may even join in the fun. 

gg


----------



## sptrawler (21 March 2022)

Ann said:


> Well if the Russians can start fires and threaten to bomb Ukrainian Nuclear plants and the uranium stocks barely miss a beat then I reckon it can take a bit of shaking Fukushima. Let's see what happens with the double top on the chart, many may just see it as a buying op. Who knows, not me!
> 
> Edit: I believe Germany is now re-thinking the closure of their nuclear plants.



Going forward, I don't think there are a lot of options.


----------



## mullokintyre (25 April 2022)

From the evil murdoch press


> Dozens of countries including Britain and France are now turning to Australia to lock in a long-term clean energy source that can help the world dramatically cut its carbon emissions.
> After nearly a decade in the deep freeze, nuclear power has been getting a fresh look as a way for the world to rapidly end its dependence on heavily-polluting coal and oil.
> 
> An energy crisis brought about by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has turbocharged this, prompting much of western Europe to look for ways to slash their reliance on Moscow.
> ...



The probable election of Macron for another 5 years may push Uranium and  its explorers a bit higher yet.
There is a tendency for Rector owners/operators to try to lock in long term contracts for uranium supply as the payback period on rectors i long term.
I will be looking ate ones that are yet to pre sell their out put, or at least look at the ones where the pre selling is minimal.
Unfortunately, I cannot see OZ installing any form of reactor in the the next 15 to 20 years.
The coalition are mostly lukewarm if not dead against it, none of the independants have expressed support, and the Labour /Greens alliance would have a less than zero chance of implementing anything to do with Nuclear power.
Mick


----------



## qldfrog (10 May 2022)

Uranium absolutely snashed in the us last night ..my Uranium related hokdind down nearly 20% overnight.outch again. No refuge oil down gold down..thanksfully aud down 2%


----------

