Uranium

[qldfrog]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Swapping co2 for nuclear waste..ROL

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

 

[qldfrog]

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]

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.
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

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]

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

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

 

[qldfrog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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: