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.
@newstrackerNuclear Future a debate on Nuclear power in Canada.
"Nuclear provides long term stability and especially a low carbon footprint. Ontario built the first nuclear reactor in Pickering 50 years ago. Has the province of Ontario every done a nuclear build on time and on budget? There is always a delay but has a chance to be a long term success. The original price for Darlington was $7 billion ended up $14 billion. It is absolute worth it because it is our lower cost power producer. More than 50% of Ontario's power comes from Nuclear producing 9,184 MW per hour, second is hydro at 3,523 MWH"
@Excelsior@Xriva - I appreciate your prior post on this larger report that was done on the #Nuclear#Energy industry and the overall #Uranium space. Here are a few excerpts worth noting:
Nuclear Power and the Clean Energy Future
Prepared for Nuclear Matters by the Horinko Group
“Nuclear power is a critical part of America’s clean energy future. It is unmatched in its ability to generate around-the-clock, large-scale, clean power. It avoids hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 emissions per year, and it provides the largest portion of the nation’s clean electric power. As states consider their clean energy policy initiatives for the future, they should adopt approaches that preserve nuclear energy so as to continue to reap the benefits of this clean power source for decades to come.”
“Future rates are difficult to estimate because they hinge on a hypothetical electricity fuel mix, which in turn is highly sensitive to the price of natural gas. Moreover, eliminating nuclear power would alter the demand for, and cost of, replacement sources. Further, changes in electricity demand overall will also impact investors’ construction decisions, market-clearing prices, and the availability of sources already in operation to replace nuclear power.”
“If all nuclear power plants were suddenly shut down, of course, we would predict significantly higher emissions (and market-clearing prices) in the near term as many non-baseload sources capable of running continuously would be required to step in and fill the place of nuclear power. Thus, one possible approach is to use non-baseload emission rates reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This approach, however, would likely overestimate resulting emissions in the longer term because, among other reasons, it represents only an initial snapshot. We would expect newer, more efficient sources of power to be constructed in the medium-term such that emission levels would decrease somewhat from current non-baseload rates.”
@ExcelsiorWith #Uranium dropping $20, I find it hard to believe that we are not near the bottom in this multi-year rout from 2011 to the end of 2016.
That is lower than spot price has been in more than a decade. So if Uranium stays at $20 or dives below it for a sustained time..... Then what?
Well, if it stays down like this it will absolutely start destroying mining supply, as mines close or get mothballed on care and maintenance. One could argue that this has already been happening for years, but maybe even the Russian tailings and large supply glut from Kazakhstan may cease to be profitable.
After that, it is hard to image what else could happen other than some of the remaining hard rock projects from Cameco, Areva, RioTinto, Paladin, Energy Resources of Australia and Energy Fuels getting shelved.
If that doesn't work then the ISR (Insitu) assets of Cameco, Energy Fuels, Ur-Energy, and Peninsula Energy will shut down.
In that kind of macro environment the new projects from Uranium Resources, UEC, Bannerman, and Toro Energy will not come online. At that point then forget about all the explorers (that everyone is so animated about) as the optionality will be in the toilet.
Is this really the end of #Nuclear Energy? That seems hard to fathom to me, and thus, the cure for low prices will be low prices.
We are definitely experiencing an interesting inflection point in the Uranium Mining business. Either spot prices get negotiated back up higher, or Nat Gas and Solar will be powering the world.
* What could be more contrarian than buying these uranium miners over the next 6-12 months?
@DanO@Andriyko The Donald is supportive of the #nuclear industry, I think. But permitting and building nuclear reactors in the US is not that easy done, Donald or not. They haven't agreed on how to dispose the spent nuclear fuel yet. Then how many people work in the nuclear industry compared with those involved in the coal industry that Obama dismantled and he tries to rebuild? He's got lots of votes from coal producing states. Coal still accounts for 33% of the electricity nationwide followed by nat gas and nuclear. $nxe
@DanOAgree that #nuclear reactors are the future. New safer generations of reactors. Hydropower sucks. Big dams wipe out whole ecosystems then they get the sediments accumulating at the bottom of the dam and they lose their ability to store water. They present risks of bursting etc. So yeah nuclear would definitely have a better place under the sun but not right now. $nxe
@Excelsior#Uranium Prices Hit A 12-Year Low Due To Feds And #Clinton Cronies
ANDREW FOLLETT – 11/02/2016
“….Uranium prices have been continually falling since the 2011 near meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, which caused public opinion to turn against #nuclear power. In early 2011, uranium was trading around $70 a pound.
Today’s low uranium prices are also partially due to the DOE dumping vast swaths of uranium onto the market to fund its operations, lowering the price enough to harm the U.S. uranium industry. Since 2011, DOE has sold off roughly $1 billion of publicly-owned uranium through private sellers without overseeing the transactions, and research by the Government Accountability Office found DOE did not did not properly value uranium sales or adequately assess any impact on the commercial uranium market.
Another major factor is that environmentalists and left-wing politicians have used alleged environmental risks to cripple the #American uranium industry, allowing foreign producers, especially #Kazakhstan and #Russia, to flood the American uranium market. As a result, American uranium mining is on the decline as a result of the extremely strict regulations, with fewer new holes drilled and expenditures for new land, exploration, and drilling declining 22 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
American commercial nuclear reactors doubled their purchases of Kazakhstani uranium in 2014, largely due to the decline in the amount of the American uranium industry. Kazakhstan alone now supplies 23 percent of the uranium for America’s nuclear reactors, according to the EIA…”
@Xriva@Excelsior So is #Nuclear really needed for base power ? Is that still the thinking ? Or will Alt Power combined with battery storage provide most of the base power in the future? If so any guess as to timelines ?
@Excelsior@Xriva - At present Nuclear is still very much needed in many countries like the US, Russia, France, S. Korea, China, India, etc... however, these recent developments in France, Switzerland, and Vietnam weren't a positive. The recent earthquake in Japan was also a sucker-punch while the #Uranium price is down, that we could have done without.
#RenewableEnergy sources of energy are gaining traction - but they are not there yet to handle all the developed countries or emerging markets base load power concerns. The #Energy Sector will continue to be a mix of multiple inputs over the next decade or two, and personally, I want to own a little of all of it #Oil, #NatGas, #Nuclear, #Hydroelectric, #Solar, #Wind, #Geothermal, #Tidal (however, I'm not really a fan of #Coal).
@newstracker#Uranium - #Nuclear scandal in France has potential to damage uranium demand
- Manufacturing flaws in critical parts covered up. Problem is that these critical parts have been used in nuclear reactors world-wide.
- The parts are from Areva’s Le Creusot Forge in Central France.
- Cautious nuclear authorities will be examining the problem and may take reactors offline as recently seen in France as a precaution.
@XrivaI've not beaten this drum in a while. But on the topic of alt power conbined with battery storage competing with base nuc power . . . . Roughly every month or so I hear of another large battery project to help alt power better supply baseload. Any new thoughts on this topic? Is #Nuclear#Uranium basepower still king?
@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
@nlepanThe Economist reports in light of the write down by Toshiba on nuclear assets purchased from Westinghouse, the company will not abandon its nuclear business. It can raise capital from sale of its semiconductor business. Toshiba has a central part in Shinzo Abe's to help bolster Japanese economic growth by exporting nuclear-power technology to emerging countries, which may help the company. Before, the acquisition, Westinghouse had signed a deal in India to build 6 nuclear reactors, Toshiba's first order since the Dai-ichi nuclear meltdown in Fukushima. Japanese banks known for propping up zombie companies, may come and support Toshiba through its current spat of trouble. At time of publication, shares in Toshiba were trading at $2.64 on the US OTC market. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21713896-its-share-price-plunged-40-three-days-investors-worried-about-its-financial#nuclear#uranium#Japan#cigarbuttinvesting