The information on this Website is not reliable and not intended to provide tax, legal, or investment advice. Nothing contained on the Website shall be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or offer to buy or sell a security to any person in any jurisdiction.
CEO.CA members discuss high-risk penny stocks which can lose their entire value. Only risk what you can afford to lose.
@Elb Select entity to fabricate fuel samples for testing in the research reactor at Halden, Norway.
Formalize the joint venture agreement with AREVA NP.
Enter into a lead test assembly (LTA) agreement between the joint venture company and a US electric utility
click to invite
@ElbJoint venture been said to happen within next few months. Anyone know any schedule for testing at Halden? Its been mentioned quite some time back but not happened yet :(
click to invite
@ElbThese 3 points are "near term milestones" taken from a investor presentation.
@Excelsior@Onlyflaws - I really just started following $LTBR (after scouring different people's choices in the #stockpickingcontest ;-)
The info on their Corporate Presentation just seemed nice to post for any investors following the #Nuclear#Energy sector. Yes, the longer term chart for Lightbridge looks rough, but so do most of the #Uranium sector for the last 5 years.
They provide enhanced nuclear fuel that is more efficient and safer due to Zirconium-Niobium cladding on the outside and a Uranium-Zirconium core. Seems like an interesting idea and they have a partnership agreement with $ARVCF Areva.
Lightbridge and AREVA Reach Agreement on Key Terms for Joint Venture to Develop and Commercialize Innovative Metallic Nuclear Fuel November 2, 2016
@ExcelsiorNice move today in $LTBR. Still small potatoes compared to where it's heading if one pulls up a 5 year chart... but a positive day.
click to invite
@Excelsior@Hejmdal@PamplonaTrader and @FundamentalAnalysis - I agree with your comments and sold my position on this strength yesterday and today for those very reasons. I appreciated @PamplonaTrader's discussion with me, and the more I thought things over, it seemed more prudent to reallocate those funds into other Uranium stocks on this spike. $LTBR is where I put it yesterday and it its up nicely today as well, but has much more solid fundamental drivers to truck much higher in it's partnership with Areva on their nuclear fuel iniatives. Cheers mates!
@Excelsior@Highheat - Because people or institutional investors bought and sold shares several times in one day. I know I did, but the liquidity was much higher today in $LTBR as the #Uranium market starts to wake up from it's 5 year #BearCave :-)
@Excelsior@EvenPrime - Thanks for the re-post of my late December #Uranium positions ;-) As an update I don't have a $URRE position now (as I sold out over Tues/Wed) and don't have $AL any longer (but still see them as prospective explorers), but now hold $LEU and $LTBR in their places for Uranium stocks with exposure to the fuel enriching/processing/re-selling side of the equation. Cheers!
@Excelsior@Lukester599 - I'm not too worried about that at present. The real question would be how many years would it take to build out the infrastructure of molten salt reactors on a global basis to absorb all the base load power from the operating 440 #Nuclear reactors? Also, what about the 60+ Nuclear plants under construction currently? In the article it mentions there were some budgetary setbacks on the construction of some those 66 reactors back in 2014 (but many of those projects are back on track 3 years later). What about all the smaller nuclear plants used by the government, or the fleets of nuclear submarines in use?
This is the same argument people have made for 60 years about #Thorium reactors replacing all #Uranium - Great idea, but implementing the shut down and removal of all the old reactors and the huge costs and build out of the new reactor fleet would take decades, and that article mentions 10-20 years. That's a far cry from the Uranium miners going "poof" in short order. By the time anything like that will take place we'll all be on Caribbean or Greek Islands sipping drinks out of coconuts :-)
What is far more likely is that the technology to enhance the #NuclearFuel to existing nuclear plants will be where the adaptation to the current model takes place.
For example: $IB$IAALF IBC Advanced Alloys is working with scientists from MIT and Texas A&M testing #Beryllium coated fuel rods that are more efficient and would prevent future meltdowns.
Nuclear Fuels Initiative - Increasing Eciency and Safety - (White Paper)
There is a company we've discussed on here recently, $LTBR Lightbridge Corp that has a JV with 2nd largest #Uranium company $ARVCF Areva to use a #Uranium - #Zirconium core with a #Zirconium - #Niobium cladding on the outside of their Fuel rods in a similar way to improve efficiency and reduce most concerns of future meltdowns.
"The technology significantly enhances the economics and safety of nuclear power, operating about 1000° C cooler than standard fuel."
$LTBR Lightbridge #CorporatePresentation (SEE Page 12 on this presentation for the fuel rod)
They've been going around and presenting the idea over the last year or so, and are getting traction, having Areva as their partner, to help roll out the new fuel.
Lightbridge Selected to Present at CleanEquity Monaco 2017 - The 10th Anniversary
/PRNewswire/ -- Lightbridge Corporation (NASDAQ: LTBR)
* The solution will be in treating the #Nuclear fuel for existing reactors and makes far more sense, than building another 500 plus different reactors and shutting down all the existing ones (many of which have already been budgeted for the next few decades).
@Excelsior@thehack & @Onekey - good discussion. One area that doesn't get enough coverage is the advancements being worked on in treating #nuclear fuel as a means of improving efficiencies, lowering costs, and reducing melt-down concerns by improving the fuel pellets. This is an area that can definitely be explored further.
Ideas like what $LTBR is doing with #Vanadium / #Zirconium clad #Uranium pellets, or $IB IBC Alloy's studies with Texas A&M and Purdue regarding the #Beryllium coated Uranium pellets achieve the same goal of lowering heat, reducing meltdown risk, and improving the efficiency of the fuel. I'm very bullish on further treatment to the fuel as a step in the right direction.
I still believe in the potential for Nuclear power to get better rather than outdated. Cheers!
> Here's the white paper on the $IB IBC research for an idea of what may be possible.
"Improving the thermal conductivity is the most direct method of addressing the heat issues facing current nuclear dioxide fuels. Modifying the thermal conductivity requires introducing a new material. Whatever material being introduced needs to be unreactive, even at high temperatures, with the UO2 in order to protect the fuel's integrity. Beryllium oxide was chosen as an ideal material as BeO remains unreactive with UO2 all the way up to 2100oC and has the best thermal conductivity of any oxide. The issue has been finding a manufacturing process for combining BeO with UO2 which is viable on an industrial scale."
>> $LTBR Lightbridge has really been taking off lately, and that is likely due to having Areva as a champion of their concept, and the Chinese patents.
Lightbridge Receives Notice of Allowance for Another Key Patent in China for its Metallic Nuclear Fuel 5/30/2017
>>> #Westinghouse formal launch of safer nuclear fuel with tests planned from 2018-2022
brian wang | June 14, 2017
"Delivered in two phases, the initial EnCore Fuel product consists of coated cladding containing uranium silicide pellets, which Westinghouse says distinguishes the fuel from other accident-tolerant fuel solutions thanks to their higher density and higher thermal conductivity."