#uranium 0 online
Members of #uranium
Moderators
Members
click to invite
@Excelsior @wannabeinvestor - Thanks for that article on the Swiss vote. Very interesting. Currently the Swiss have these 5 older active #nuclear reactors: Switzerland Beznau-1 PWR 365 1969 Switzerland Beznau-2 PWR 365 1971 Switzerland Goesgen PWR 1,010 1979 Switzerland Leibstadt BWR 1,220 1984 Switzerland Muehleberg BWR 373 1971 https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/World-Nuclear-Power-Plants-in-Operation SWITZERLAND: 5 reactors 3,333 MW 20,303.1 GWh 34.4% Nuclear in fuel share for country https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/World-Nuclear-Generation-and-Capacity None of the other 60 reactors under construction are happening in Switzerland, so it doesn't really affect new reactor build. However, this would affect #Uranium demand, in the future, from retiring their existing fleet; if they take those offline and don't replace them. That article above projected it this way: "Nuclear power is currently set up to run its course with plants coming off line as they age. Without constructing new reactors, nuclear power is expected to end in Switzerland by 2034, even though, by itself, nuclear power has strong public support, according to the World Nuclear Association." "The referendum, should it pass, would begin the phase out of nuclear power in 2019."
0
click to invite
@hunter Swiss vote to withdraw country from use of nuclear power per ABC http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/swiss-vote-withdraw-country-nuclear-power-47541804 $NXE #uranium
0
from #nxe,
click to invite
@hunter then again, BBC says Swiss move against nuclear energy rejected "Switzerland votes against strict timetable for nuclear power phaseout" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38120559 $NXE #uranium
0
from #nxe,
click to invite
@KP138 @hunter the BBC link shows a date from last year. So did the Swiss vote approve withdrawing #nuclear ?
0
0
click to invite
@hunter sorry I did not see the date on that BBC news link, @KP138. @Rulingmining link shows no real commitment one way or the other, gradual phase out, not any rush out of nuclear, but no further nuclear builds for now, either. See $NXE channnel note from @pinnsvin https://ceo.ca/nxe?13c1e7850e5e ..."Voters have not set a deadline for the rest to be closed. They will bea [sic] allowed to run as long as they meet safety standards. The law will ban the construction of new plants."
0
click to invite
@hunter latest BBC confirms Swiss vote phasing out nuke power - Switzerland votes to phase out nuclear power http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39994599 #uranium
0
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor German speaking Europe are committed anties. Lost of headwind for nuclear in Europe, sadly. Go ahead, try an replace lost nuclear with solar.
1
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor Spanish onshore wind auction sets a record at €43/MWh. https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/spain-returns-to-wind-energy-with-record-low-prices/ Not sure whether anyone will make money at these prices, this is lower than some of the recent offshore auctions in Europe. #uranium
1
from #index,
click to invite
@tcu Let's focus on $GXU and #URANIUM shall we. That's what the board is for
3
from #gxu,
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor @TCU, unless you pay attention to competing, zero marginal cost clean alternatives to nuclear, you may be in for a very bad surprise with smth like $GXU one day. offshore wind is the worst clean-tech competitor to nuclear because capex per MW and MWh of production is coming down fast, offshore wind can be rolled out on utility scale, production tends to be much more consistent and predictable than onshore wind, the economics of it is becoming very reasonable, permitting and construction time-lines are 1 - 2 years and grid companies are getting good at absorbing production from intermittent sources. Vattenfall recently committed to an offshore wind park development in Germany on market terms... this means they expect to make money without a subsidy (which is usually higher than the market price of electirity everywhere in Europe). This Spanish thing is significant in that the level of support (the feed-in tariff at €43/ MWh) is actually more or less the market price of electricity in Spain. These developments undermine the appeal of large nuclear plants, surely in Europe but it would appear that this is the case also elsewhere, notably in China. what this affects is the global nuclear plant planning pipeline ALL uranium companies are flagging as key long-term investment attraction. it's kind of like cryptocurrencies vs gold. people like to joke about the likes of bitcoin, but there is a whole generation out there who see the utility of bitcoins but not gold. same thing with renewables vs. nuclear. although nuclear is the ultimate clean source of baseload power which should be embraced world-wide, it's the much less efficient renewables that are getting all the attention and support nowadays which makes the nuclear business difficult. I am no proponent of renewables, particularly not the dirty ones (biomass, waste), but the reality is that this space is taking share from other types of power generation, and that includes nuclear.
3
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor One of many examples out there that greens will make up false arguments to fight new nuclear plants if that's what it takes. it's easy money for the greens because the current nuclear technology is so complex, i.e. one can make up whatever BS to turn local communities and in fact politicians against nuclear. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pea-shooters-public-shaming-real-challenge-behind-small-alexander?trk=v-feed&lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_feed%3BykbGevpLGln5f8mE5YXyWQ%3D%3D
1
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor nuclear utilities, regulators and proponents of nuclear power should spread this infographic around. puts radiation in perspective. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/longform/what-know-you-go-bananas-about-radiation $NXE #uranium
4
from #index,
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor This is great. Finally it has occurred to someone that all this green propaganda depicting installed renewable capacities as actual production is utter BS. I mean often times you see green activists that do not distinguish between MW and MWh pushing the agenda for renewables. https://www.windspire.ch/blog/2017/5/17/the-difference-between-kw-and-kwh-and-why-this-is-crucial-to-any-discussion-about-wind-energy
1
click to invite
@Bimbeebop @wannabeinvestor #uranium, $GXU Not quite sure what any of that has to do with the facts. 60 reactors are under construction, 160 planned and 300 proposed around the world. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
2
from #gxu,
click to invite
@tcu We do not need the tree huggers and "save the planet" types to be onboard to make money on $/8_ we need spec money, institutional money and investors dollars to drive #uranium stocks higher. Not everyone agrees with marijuana legalization and look at the run those stocks had. With far worst and more expensive valuations! I think the case for U can be made any way you slice it. Cheap, powerful and CLEAN. Nothing can compare. Plus wind farms take up tons of room, and will become a logistical nightmare. Land based have now been proven to kill bug and bee populations in the millions. If we all wanna sit around a campfire and sing kumbaya then they should really consider the damage wind turbines are doing also.
2
from #gxu,
click to invite
@Lukester599 I am in favor of nuclear power but to call it cheap is a misdirection. Loooongg amortization timeframes for nuclear power plants, particularly in Western countries.
1
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor @bimbeebop at @tcu. what my posts re onshore and particularly offshore wind were meant to convey is this: the 160 planned reactors are a pipe dream unless modular plants go commercial. building new nukes, especially in the western countries, remains costly and takes a long time compared to the alternatives. this explains why sentiment towards nuclear among utilities operating in deregulated markets continues to deteriorate. while fundamentally nuclear is the way to go, in real life nuclear newbuilds face increasing headwind and that includes China which probably accounts for the majority of the planning pipeline
0
click to invite
@Lukester599 @wannabeinvestor - well I for one doubt that thesis. They will be built regardless. Just not much in the Western countries. And then in due course the modular units will also come in.
1
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor @Lukester599, I sure hope that's the case. if common sense prevailed, nuclear would be given a fair chance to compete with other technologies but that's not the case everywhere. A meaningful carbon tax would likely remedy the situation. not bullshitting re China, the inland reactor projects for example are not moving ahead as expected.
1
click to invite
@Onekey "Russian-made portable nuclear energy barges or capsules may soon make its way to the Philippines as officials of the Eurasian giant have expressed willingness to sell the technology, a diplomat said Tuesday."Russia is a major power in terms of energy, not just on fossil fuels but renewable resources and more modern forms of energy... Russia can provide a whole range of nuclear energy... They were able to develop this commercially," Philippine ambassador to Russia Carlos Sorreta said." http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/23/17/russia-offers-portable-nuke-power-source-for-ph-envoy #uranium
0
click to invite
wannabeinvestor Oddly small reactors as such have existed in the military for decades. Submarines and ice breakers run on small reactors. Why has that technology not been commercialised for civil use?
2
click to invite
@tcu Disagree with your thesis as well. Lots of reports and much smarter people than myself saying nuclear is the way of the future. No way this world can sustain growth in concentrated countries without #uranium. Too many positives and fundamentals lining up to contradict your thesis
1
click to invite
anonymous Uranium May 17 20.25s -1.50 0.00 20.25 20.25 05/23/17
2
click to invite
@Onekey Wow...looks like that guy that said #uranium will drop below $20 again was right.
2
click to invite
@Lukester599 Market gluts or scarcities created by fat tail events can behave very unpredictably. This may continue to act as a glut right up to the moment it can't any further. Meaning global U production can languish severely right up to the critical inflexion point - maybe even right out to 2019. I started buying in way back in 2012. Have seen a lot of false starts. I am a skeptic for this year and even next. But after that, the situation will be a price pressure-cooker. It has been a very unpleasant ride. And continuing. #uranium
1
click to invite
@Kangoogoo @Onekey Thanks.
1
click to invite
@tcu The cure for low prices.... you guessed it, low prices! Bring it on. Will make the slingshot even tighter so when it spikes, it really goes. Long #uranium
3
0
click to invite
@NickZed https://www.dropbox.com/s/nwvy6vpvn6130gx/28765?dl=0 interesting Uranium report- Number 1 pick is $DYL.AX #Uranium. Pages 18-19
6
from #dyl.ax,
click to invite
@Onekey Thanks @NickZed I think this quote was interesting: "“From 2006 to 2010, on average, roughly 40 million pounds U3O8 equivalent were purchased on the spot market per year and approximately 200 million pounds U3O8 equivalent were contracted in the long term market each year. By comparison, from 2011 to 2015, on average, roughly 48 million pounds U3O8 equivalent have been purchased on the spot market per year, while less than 100 million pounds U3O8 equivalent were contracted in the long term market each year. In 2014 and 2015, long term contracting volumes were roughly 78 million pounds U3O8 per year. With low contract volumes in recent years and increasing uncovered requirements, we expect that long term contracting activity will have to increase in the future as utilities look to secure supply and move U3O8 through the nuclear fuel cycle in order to fuel the world's growing fleet of nuclear reactors.” -Uranium Participation Corp.22 #uranium
0
click to invite
anonymous Uranium May 17 20.00s -0.25 0.00 20.00 20.00 05/24/17
0
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor European renewable madness: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132031-eu-nations-set-to-wipe-out-forests-and-not-account-for-emissions/ 65% of renewable electricity generation in the EU is biomass-fired, mostly woody biomass. Carbon intensity of woody biomass = that of coal.
0
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor So it appears that the Swiss voted NO to any new nuclear plants, not YES to any accelerated phase-out of the existing plants as BBC would have you believe. Typical European green anti-nuclearist drivel spread by BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39994599 Last sentence of the article renders the headline FALSE: "However, a referendum which asked if people wanted to limit the nuclear plants lifespan to 45 years failed to get enough support in November." Trump is right about fake news and alternative facts. #NXE
5
click to invite
@edward http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/23/reporters-notebook-be-warned-us25-oil-is-coming-and-along-with-it-a-new-world-order.html Reporter's notebook: Be warned: $25 oil is coming, and along with it, a new world order
0
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor those who see no headwind to nuclear going fwd, how about this one: http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/three-mile-island-nuclear-plant-again-fails-key-power-auction/article_e12d94f8-4080-11e7-8297-034697ee2fd0.html artificial price setting mechanisms to support renewables are a headache for nuclear until nuclear gets treaded the same way as renewables or a meaningful carbon tax is imposed.
1
click to invite
@Rulingmining @wannabeinvestor I have been seeing articles written where the title manipulate the actual results, such as: Swiss ban nuclear. Funny how ignorant some environmentalists can be. They want clean air but they would rather burn fossil fuels for baseload rather the cleanest emissions producing power that exists. If we didn't have nuclear all these years the globe could be afew degrees warmer. #uranium
2
from #nxe,
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor agree. my favourites are headlines where output (i.e. production) is confused with capacity or comparing the installed capacities of renewables vs. baseload sources to show how well the green revolution is doing. on that basis the revolution looks to be total success. though some might argue the the following is like looking in the rear-view mirror, in reality, however, here's a cool summary of what all this capacity actually generates: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/europe-little-output-show-wind-solar-investments/ so one can clearly see why renewables pumpers talk about capacity as if it's actual production? how does that differ from, say, Soviet propaganda? lots of fake news in this space. trouble is fake news add to general sentiment. #uranium
2
from #nxe,
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor here's a concrete example. though headline of the graph is accurate, i.e. growth in capacity, the headline of the pump in the media is "The Output of 1 Offshore Wind Turbine Doubled Over 7 Times to 8MW Since 1981, Will Double Again to 15MW By 2025 As Costs Crash" https://buffer-media-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/5922ea8454c82f003ad6709f/bd39f1255ee668f9cf032ee4432ddffd045f1c79_aa0df81e47be810ef65371fc0af1790e76ac470b_linkedin and this is how BS spreads or rather, is spread.
1
click to invite
@Rulingmining @wannabeinvestor Cool! Well given this relationship to size of the turbine blades and power output I have thought of a brilliant way to double wind turbine output again.... 6 blades... mind blowing, right?!
0
click to invite
@poolman @Rulingmining Ok sounds like you're on your way to inventing the turbine engine, add lots of blades on multiple blade assemblies and stuff it all into a shroud assembly to compress the air, add a little fuel at the appropriate point, viola.
1
click to invite
@wannabeinvestor modern media works this way: http://cdn.ceo.ca/1cidmji-media.jpeg+
6
click to invite
wannabeinvestor Interesting view on trying to tackle carbon emissions by using wind vs nuclear. One needs 3.2m 3MW turbines or nearly 2000 reactors with 1400 MW capacity installed by 2050 to get back to 1990 carbon intensity levels. For nuclear this implies 60 new reactors every year between now and 2050. And even if this goal is reached, carbon levels in the atmosphere will still increase. It's a reduction from current level of 10Gt of carbon per year to 6Gt. In other words, if humas mean business with decarbonisation, nuclear should play a cetral role http://euanmearns.com/what-does-it-take-to-substitute-4-gtc-using-low-c-electricity/
1
click to invite
@Onekey "Anfield is a near-term production company with assets all in the United States. Its low-risk profile and high return potential have not attracted as much investor attention as this company deserves." http://palisade-research.com/the-greatest-benefactor-of-us-russian-relations-anfield-resources-cveary-otcmktsanldf-fra0ad/ #uranium
1
click to invite
@Excelsior Hunt for #Zinc and #Uranium with #GwenPreston GoldNewsletter - Published on May 16, 2017 "After the better part of a decade in mining journalism, Gwen Preston has gone out on her own to find the best natural-resource opportunities around the globe. Based in Canada and writing as the Resource Maven, her next trip is to Mongolia, and she delivers plenty of candy for investors to chew on." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCLe9qWbPSc+
2
from #index,
click to invite
@ylr Free chart. Here is why you should not buy $NXE just based on technicals. On the hourly chart, I think we are in the same position has in A. 20 death withe 200 SMA. http://cdn.ceo.ca/1cif1hf-NXE.png+ #uranium
0
from #index,