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.
@Excelsior@Goldfinger - Tepco is oversupplied with #Uranium because the Japanese reactors haven't been running since Fukushima. It's been coming ever since they left most of their fleet off for years.
It just shows the sign of the times that power companies are trying to weasel out of longer term supply contracts.
"So yeah..... You know how we signed that contract saying we'd buy all this #Uranium from you......yeah..... we don't want any more for a while.....we want out of that contract...."
While it may drag out a while longer, this is what the bottom in a commodity sector is triggered by. $CCO$CCJ is right to insist their supply contract be honored, as that is why there was a contract in the first place, but it's a sad & interesting supply/demand story playing out in the #Nuclear energy sector.
@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).
@ExcelsiorUranium Energy Corp Issues Shareholder Letter and CEO Presentation
February 7, 2017 - $UEC Uranium Energy Corp is pleased to provide the following letter to its shareholders from President and CEO, Amir Adnani. A corner is turning in the #uranium market. You can see this in the improving price for spot uranium which is up over 40% in just two months. Several factors are contributing to major change.
• "On the $supply side of the #uranium market, in late 2016 the uranium price dropped to a 12-year low and made many industry analysts question when we would see more production cuts by major producers. It didn’t take long, and in early January 2017 the world’s largest uranium miner, Kazatomprom, Kazakhstan’s national uranium company that produces 40% of the world’s annual supply, announced a 10% reduction in uranium production. This single action will reduce global output by approximately 4%, and comes on the heels of previous production cutbacks announced by other uranium producers in 2016.
• On the $demand side, the global growth in #nuclear power capacity is clear with 60 reactors under construction worldwide. Over 20 mega-cities in Asia are facing serious air pollution crises which cannot be resolved without emission-free baseload electricity generation that only nuclear power provides. Additionally, US utilities are expected to significantly increase their spot market and long term contracting in 2017 to fill their near-term and long-term uranium requirements. The last major contracting cycle occurred in the 2005-2010 period, with many of those contracted commitments rolling off today. That period saw the uranium price react strongly and reach all-time highs...."
@ExcelsiorThe Greatest Prize In All History – (Again)
by @Gianni on February 12, 2017 - [that last passage really sums it up]
“The average #electricvehicle has 100 kilograms of #copper. When a 200 MW wind park is constructed, it requires on average 5 tonnes of copper per MW, whereas conventional power generation – #thermalcoal, #naturalgas, #nuclear – requires 1 tonne per MW. The average American household has ~400 pounds of copper – that has remained unusually static for decades. So what happens in the house where Musk did his #solar roof demonstration. The exact maths have yet to be completed, yet a pencil and paper are not essential for a basic understanding. Between the home, solar roof, #batteries and one #EV, there would easily be in excess of 1,000 pounds of copper in an energy self-sufficient dwelling. The potential for: #copper, #lithium, #cobalt, #nickel, and others, is mind boggling.”
@Excelsior@Lukester599 - Absolutely, it is a wise and balanced approach to having some healthy skepticism, as it relates to the recovery of the uranium market. There have been plenty of head fakes and false rallies since 2011, and there is a large supply overhang that the market is digesting.
Still, there are 60 + new reactors being built and about 100 planned, Kazakhstan is cutting pack production, and we live in a world that is electrifying. The power mix will come from a combination of energy inputs, but #Nuclear will remain a big part of that mix.
When Uranium got down below $18 to the $17.75 level, it seemed ridiculous, and it sure seemed like a bottom in price and in sentiment.
I'm moving forward with the thesis that Nuclear energy is moving forward. The price has to rise to meet the cost of production, because if this drags out much longer we'll have total supply destruction. I'm betting on a steady climb in Uranium moving into 2020, and some of these miners are going to take quite a ride. Cheers!
Geothermal is a bet against Nat gasIf you are investing in electric you should be betting against #naturalgas$ora has been pricing atot of their electric based on natural gas and it is the price to beat for new plants. Nuclear has also been mentioning Nat gas when they decide to close plants. The good news would be that Nat gas won't stay cheap and there is new technology being developed for geothermal and $nuclear so that prices should go down relative to nat gas.
@Excelsior@Bimbeebop - I agree that the increase of the #Uranium price from below $18 to $25-$26 has been a noteworthy percentage increase, as was the US/Russian agreement to quit dumping so much #Nuclear fuel into to the spot markets from a program that was supposed to have ended a few years ago and completely disregarded the metrics of that program, as it relates to limits and the amount sold and pricing. This had further tanked the spot price the last few years and trashed many of these mining companies share prices. In 2015, 86% of uranium supply came from mines and 14% came from decommissioned nuclear warheads and other secondary uranium production sources.
There was some misplaced elation from Trumps tweets, but in contrast, the Kazakhstan reduction of output of 10% was a valid sentiment and price driver. So when people say it was an unwarranted move up, they clearly are not following the space or following the macro drivers.
Lastly, the longer-term offtake agreements will be getting negotiated from 2017-2020 and this will only drive prices higher, as no companies are making money at $25 and need #Uranium closer to $50-$60. Let's get real, spot pricing can't camp out here for years or there won't be any Uranium mining companies left.
Anyone that seriously believes U will be stuck at this same level flat for 3 years doesn't understand how these off-take agreements will be adjusting pricing up when power and utility companies come back to the market.
So a short term sideways to down consolidation wouldn't surprise me at all, and a pullback of 20% should be bought, but a 2-3 year stall would be the end of the industry as we know it, so odds are pricing will head higher moving into 2020 and the Uranium mining stocks will be rerated accordingly.
@ExcelsiorAnti-Nuke Dogma Trumps Common Sense On #Nuclear Energy
James Conca , Contributor – FEB 22, 2017
“The report claims #wind and #solar prices have fallen dramatically, and rightly so, but then fails to mention they still cost more than existing power plants that have two or three times their lifespan. They also fail to tell the reader that #naturalgas or #hydropower is necessary to backup #wind and #solar, at an unknown cost, something #California is struggling with as their renewables approach 30%.”
All other legitimate reports disagree with the McCullough analysis, showing instead that this strategy of replacing Columbia Generating Station with #renewables and #gas would lose ratepayers about $1.6 billion over the next 20 years and put an extra 60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, EIA, BPA) while laying off a thousand workers and three thousand more that depend on them….”
“It does seem foolish to close a power plant 25 years ahead of schedule when it’s producing energy at a price of 4.2¢/kWh, 93% of the time with only 17 gCO2/kWh, based solely on the hope that gas prices will not increase for 20 years. And Columbia Generating Station’s price can’t go up much in the next 20 years since their Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) recently signed with Bonneville Power Administration is set at between 4.7 and 5.2¢/kWh.”
@ExcelsiorIn an era where facts no longer matter, consequences still do
February 21, 2017 - #Nuclear#Uranium
" For something as polarizing as nuclear power, facts-based decision making is critical to increasing support. (I understand the paradigm of fear of radiation is more emotional than fact based and I agree that we need to appeal to emotions to create the change we need – but let’s leave that to a future discussion. In any case it certainly doesn’t hurt to have the facts on your side.)"
"So, let’s look at what happens when countries believe they can eliminate #nuclear power from the mix and replace it with more #wind and Esolar power. Of course, I am talking about Germany...."
@ExcelsiorLess #nuclear energy has meant higher costs, less clean energy overall and more deaths
February 25, 2017
Michael Shellenberger explains how less nuclear energy has meant higher costs and less clean energy overall.
* #USA has shutdown Enuclear plants prematurely because of lower #naturalgas costs
* this has increased emissions of CO2 and air pollution
* Overall energy costs have increased in the #USA which correlate with lower #nuclear energy mix
* #Germany has 6 times more carbon intensive energy than France
* Germany shutdown nuclear energy and now is even more reliant on coal and fossil fuel
* #France uses 80% nuclear power for electricity
* #France has half the cost of electricity compared to #Germany
* the global decline in #nuclear power (-7.5% of energy mix) has not been replaced by solar and wind (4.5%)
* the global decline in #nuclear (most of #Japan nuclear shutdown, #Germany shutdown, some early shutdowns in #USA and #Europe) has not been made up by the build in China and Asia and appears like future Europe and USA shutdowns (150 GW) will made up by new nuclear in #China and #India and #Asia through 2030.”
@Excelsior@noir - I'd be very careful to not get swept into the world of fake news as it relates to the Fukushima models and projections of a few nervous nellies.... Here's a good article to start with:
True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster
BY Dr. Marini
“Rather unfortunately, it has also led to some wild speculation on the widespread dangers of #Fukushima radiation on the internet. Posts with titles like “Holy Fukushima – Radiation From Japan Is Already Killing North Americans” and “28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With #Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima” (which Southern Fried Science has already thoroughly debunked ) keep popping up on my facebook feed from well-meaning friends.”
“I’m here to tell you that these posts are just plain garbage. While there are terrible things that happened around the Fukushima Power Plant in Japan; Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast aren’t in any danger. These posts were meant to scare people (and possibly written by terrified authors).
They did just that, but there is a severe lack of facts in these posts. Which is why I am here to give you the facts, and nothing but the facts.”
This article goes on to provide facts on the types of isotopes, radiation, risks, reality, hype, fake news and all around nonsense circulating on the internet that radiation will sweep the globe.
“Photos that claim to show the effects of the #Fukushima#nuclear disaster on marine life are actually cribbed from various unrelated corners of the internet.”
In February 2016, a series of photos purportedly showing the ill effects that the Fukushima nuclear disaster had on marine life was widely shared on social media. A popular Facebook post, which appeared to be a rewrite of an article published by web site Superstation95 in October 2015, reported that North Americans were eating seafood filled with “cancerous tumors”:
“While the Daiichi meltdowns and subsequent radiation releases did have a major effect on aquatic life, these photos do not illustrate those effects. For instance, the lead photo of the article, purportedly showing the “bloody” and “cancerous” tumors caused by nuclear radiation, was actually taken in 2004, years before the Fukushima disaster started leaking radiation into the sea:”
The article then shows a picture of “cancerous tumors in salmon” purportedly linked to a rise in nuclear radiation in oceans:
“Again, however, the above-displayed image was taken prior to the Fukushima disaster. The image also does not show cancerous tumors, or any type of tumor at all. Instead, it was lifted from Wikipedia, and shows a salmon infected with with Henneguya salminicola, a myxosporean parasite.”
“Another misleading photo featured University of Alberta scientist David Schindler holding a fish with a growth. The article reported that this image depicted a fish “showing classic signs of radiation-caused cancerous tumors,” but Schindler said that the fish was taken from the Athabasca River watershed, which is downstream from an oil sands industrial development — not a nuclear plant:”
*The article goes on from there with example after example…… There is plenty of “fake news” about the dead seafood or things being tagged as effects of Fukushima that are 100% BS. People that don't do research on the #Nuclear industry or facts about what the risks are, and take all their news from YouTube reactionary videos shouldn't trouble themselves with the truth though….
@ExcelsiorRadioactive Wastes – Myths and Realities
(Updated February 2016)
“There are a number of pervasive myths regarding both radiation and radioactive wastes. Some lead to regulation and actions which are counterproductive to human health and safety.”
“With the availability of technologies and the continued progress being made to develop publicly acceptable sites, it is logical that construction of new nuclear facilities can continue.”
“ #Nuclear energy has distinct environmental advantages over fossil fuels. As well as containing and managing virtually all its wastes, nuclear power stations do not cause any pollution.The fuel for nuclear power is virtually unlimited, considering both geological and technological aspects. There is plenty of #uranium in the Earth’s crust and furthermore, well-proven (but not yet fully economic) technology means that we can extract about 60 times as much energy from it as we do today.”
“The safety record of nuclear energy is better than for any major industrial technology. All these benefits should be taken into account when considering the construction of new facilities.”
“Nuclear materials have been transported safely (virtually without incident and without harmful effect on anyone) since before the advent of nuclear power over 50 years ago. Transportations of nuclear materials cannot therefore be referred to as ‘mobile Chernobyls’.”
“Relative to petrol and chemical tankers routinely used on public roads or on railways, transport of any radioactive wastes as normally practised poses trivial hazards.”
“The reality is that with today’s spent fuel or vitrified high-level waste (HLW), extra layers of protection come from the multi-barriers of stable ceramic material, encapsulation, and depth from the biosphere that are designed to prevent any movement of radioactivity for thousands of years. A stable geological formation, within which the waste will be disposed, also constitutes a highly reliable barrier.”
@Excelsior@Slmjr - thanks for that article. It's about damn time they reviewed how the US government has been dumping extra #Nuclear fuel into the spot markets and the effects it has had on #Uranium miners. It mentions that they didn't think it would have an adverse effect on pricing or the miners and that they plan to continue this until 2020. #GimmeABreak#BureaucratsAreClueless
@ExcelsiorAnfield Resources Announces Vice President, Uranium Sales and Marketing
(Marketwired – March 13, 2017) – $ARY$ANLDF Anfield Resources Inc.
Corey Dias, Anfield’s CEO, stated, ” We are very pleased with the addition of Scott Lumadue as Anfield’s Vice President of #Uranium Sales and Marketing. Mr. Lumadue’s extensive experience within the #nuclear sector will be a tremendous asset to the Company. His long-term relationships with U.S. utilities and nuclear conversion facilities provide Anfield with a unique opportunity to leverage its improving #uranium#production position through the pursuit of long-term utility sales contracts. Anfield continues to strengthen its market position not only through strategic property and process acquisitions, but also through the addition of key personnel. By executing on this strategy, Anfield’s value proposition continues to gain greater appeal.”
* Arizona/Colorado/Utah – Shootaring Canyon Mill
“The key asset in Anfield’s conventional uranium portfolio is the Shootaring Canyon Mill in Garfield County, Utah. The Shootaring Canyon Mill is strategically located within one of the historically most prolific uranium production areas in the United States, and is one of only three licensed #uranium#mills in the United States.”
** Wyoming Properties – Irigaray ISR Processing Plant (Resin Processing Agreement)
“Anfield’s #ISR mining projects are located in the Black Hills, Powder River Basin, Great Divide Basin, Laramie Basin, Shirley Basin and Wind River Basin areas in Wyoming, and comprise 2,667 federal mining claims, 56 Wyoming State leases and 15 private leases acquired from Uranium One in September 2016.”
@Excelsior@Allan - It makes sense to me that the US and really many other countries should be trying to secure sources of these #SpecialtyMetals and #CriticalMaterials for technology, innovation, renewable power, defense, healthcare, etc.... outside of the stranglehold that China has had on them.
There were some interesting comments on the #Nuclear initiatives as well for both #Uranium and for #Thorium powered submarines. A very interesting bill indeed.
@KP138@TheLip2 thanks for posting that article on Westinghouse. I was starting to feel more optimistic regarding nuclear, but that article really seemed to be negative. Is there a positive spin I'm missing? #nuclear
@ExcelsiorHow Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer #Energy Sources
“For coal, oil and biomass, it is carbon particulates resulting from burning that cause upper respiratory distress, kind of a second-hand black lung. Our lungs just don’t like burnt carbonaceous particulates, whether from coal or wood or manure or pellets or cigarettes. The actual numbers of deaths in China from coal use exceeded 300,000 last year since they have ramped up coal so fast in the last decade and they usually do not install exhaust scrubbers. The impact on their health care system has been significant in not just deaths, but in non-lethal health effects and lost days of work.”
**Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
#Coal – global average 100,000 (41% global electricity)
#Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)
#Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity)
#Oil 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
#NaturalGas 4,000 (22% global electricity)
#Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
#Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
#Wind 150 (2% global electricity)
#Hydro – global average 1,400 (16% global electricity)
#Hydro – U.S. 5 (6% U.S. electricity)
#Nuclear – global average 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
#Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity)
*Look at which energy input is the least deadly... #Nuclear.
Most people's nuclear fears are irrational, unfounded, and not based in any evidence. #Uranium
@Excelsior@Vaughan - Thanks. Yes Ur-Energy is a nice little In-situ #producer & reseller, and they have nice upside/downside torque to moves in the #Uranium mining stocks. A fun company to trade, but I always keep a small core position in place in case a larger company decides to gobble them up one day. It also seems prudent to have a few irons in the fire in the US production sub-sector because the US still has the largest fleet and most energy demands as it relates to #Nuclear power.
It isn't common to hear $URG discussed very often though. Same thing with the small producer $PEN.AX Peninsula energy and the near term producer $ARY Anfield Resources. Most generalist resource investors, that only give Uranium a cursory look, tend to focus on Canada and the Athabasca Basin, or sometimes in Africa or Australia, but these smaller US producers are still flying under the radar.
@Excelsior@Picsou - good thoughts. I never stated emphatically that the French were going to phase their reactors out. Here's what I said:
" This aging French fleet of #Nuclear Reactors and the politics around shutting them down, extending their life, or building new ones is a very significant debate to follow."
I'm sure it isn't the last we'll hear about this either, and it will be an area that any elected leader in France will need to deal with.
Longer term 3 years out, the growth in Asia and the Middle east will more than absorb any lost fleet in Japan. All I'm saying is that France is a player in the nuclear space and if their 58 reactors are on the political chopping block, it would be significant to the #Uranium sector as a whole. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
@Excelsior* 10 Top #Uranium Mines
Melissa Shaw • May 14, 2017
"McArthur River was the largest producer of uranium in 2016. But what were last year's other top uranium mines? In 2016, world uranium mine #production came to 62,012 tonnes, up from 60,496 tonnes in 2015. #Kazakhstan was the top-producing country by far, putting out 24,575 tonnes, and it was followed by #Canada and #Australia."
Together, those three nations accounted for over two-thirds of uranium production last year, with Kazakhstan taking a 39-percent share of world output and Canada and Australia taking 22- and 10-percent shares, respectively. A wide variety of uranium companies contributed to production.
But where in the world are the top uranium mines? While many of them are located in Kazakhstan, Canada and Australia, that’s not the case for all of the largest uranium mines...."
** Near-Term Advanced #Nuclear Plant Designs
The nuclear industry has developed several advanced reactor designs that can be ready to meet U.S. generating needs.
> AREVA U.S. EPR
The U.S. #EPR is 1,600-megawatt pressurized water reactor. AREVA submitted this design to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December 2007 for review and certification.
> GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
The #ABWR is a 1,350- to 1,600-megawatt boiling water reactor. The NRC has certified the design.
> GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy ESBWR
The #ESBWR is a 1,520-megawatt boiling water reactor. The NRC has certified the design.
> KEPCO/KHNP Advanced Power Reactor 1400
The #APR 1400 is a 1,400-megwatt pressurized water reactor. Korea Electric Power Corporation and Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co., Ltd., submitted this design to the NRC for review and certification in December 2014.
> Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. US-APWR
The #US-APWR is a 1,700-megawatt pressurized water reactor. Mitsubishi submitted this design to the NRC for review and certification in December 2007.
> Westinghouse AP1000
The #AP1000 is a 1,117-1,154 megawatt pressurized water reactor. The NRC has certified the design. (obviously we all know Westinghouse is in trouble but it was worked on and some other company will pick up the torch)
@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
SWITZERLAND: 5 reactors 3,333 MW 20,303.1 GWh 34.4% Nuclear in fuel share for country
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."