Uranium resurgence

[Sean K]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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!