Uranium (Nuclear Energy)

Re: Nuclear Energy

Postby LenaHuat » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:07 am

Gd Morn, MM :)
Opportunities in these nuclear-waste disposal firms?
The Government also signed a multi-billion pound deal with firms dealing with nuclear waste at Sellafield last week. Mr Brown hopes that oil-rich states such as Saudi Arabia may invest in new nuclear power stations in this country.
Please be forewarned that you are reading a post by an otiose housewife. ImageImage**Image**Image@@ImageImageImage
User avatar
LenaHuat
Big Boss
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:35 am

Re: Nuclear Energy

Postby winston » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:26 am

The rising cost of materials and labor has the potential to put an end to the nuclear renaissance before it ever gets started.

Company estimates that have been released show costs for an individual unit could be as high as $12 billion, and one consultant expects those estimates could rise if material prices continue to escalate.

Florida Power & Light told the Florida Public Service Commission late last year that the cost for building new units at Turkey Point in south Florida could be up to $8,000 per kilowatt – or $24 billion for two units.

Earlier this year, Progress Energy pegged its cost estimates for two new units on Florida's west coast at about $14 billion plus $3 billion for transmission and distribution. While Progress' estimates are lower than FPL's, they are more than twice as much as the $2,000 per kilowatt that industry contractors promised for new nuclear plants just two years ago.

– Energy Central
It's all about "how much you made when you were right" & "how little you lost when you were wrong"
User avatar
winston
Billionaire Boss
 
Posts: 112616
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:28 am

Re: Nuclear Energy

Postby kennynah » Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:17 pm

all of us, have an exercise bicycle at home. attach a DC generator to the gearing system, and when we do our exercise, we charge up a DC battery. Then we can use that for recharging our phone, power our fan, notebook, etc...

isnt that wonderful..... people have already begun using this...
Options Strategies & Discussions .(Trading Discipline : The Science of Constantly Acting on Knowledge Consistently - kennynah).Investment Strategies & Ideas

Image..................................................................<A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control-Proverbs 29:11>.................................................................Image
User avatar
kennynah
Lord of the Lew Lian
 
Posts: 14201
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 2:00 am
Location: everywhere.. and nowhere..

Re: Nuclear Energy

Postby LenaHuat » Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:00 pm

Juz read K's post.......ha,ha, I'm not sure my wobbly legs can do this but no onerous deal cuz can hire 'legs' to do this. The problem may lie with the aircon which is a power guzzler.

Here's a piece of French news - the perenial paranoid that something can seriously go wrong with nuclear energy. France has 59 nuclear plants that satisfy 80% of the country's energy needs.
NEW LEAK DISCOVERY
France to Test Groundwater at All Nuclear Plants
In a response to calls by activist groups and the discovery that leaks found last week might have happened years ago, France has agreed to examine the groundwater near all its nuclear plants. Though the anti-nuclear groups see this as a positive step, they say it still doesn't go far enough.

After tests following a uranium leak in France (more...)revealed that the radiation came from another earlier source, France's environment minister has ordered tests of the groundwater in areas surrounding all of France's nuclear power plants.
Please be forewarned that you are reading a post by an otiose housewife. ImageImage**Image**Image@@ImageImageImage
User avatar
LenaHuat
Big Boss
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:35 am

Re: Uranium

Postby winston » Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:47 am

Cameco Falls on Concern New Flooding Will Delay Mine
By Christopher Donville

Aug. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Cameco Corp., the world's largest uranium producer, fell the most in 21 months in Toronto trading on speculation that company efforts to start production at the flooded Cigar Lake mine will be delayed further.

Cameco plunged C$2.80, or 8.4 percent, to C$30.52 at 4:20 p.m. on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The decline was the greatest since Oct. 23, 2006, the day the mine originally flooded. The Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based company's shares have fallen 23 percent this year.

Chief Executive Officer Jerry Grandey said yesterday he expected renewed flooding this week at the mine would delay efforts to complete construction of the Saskatchewan mine, the world's richest untapped uranium deposit. The comments were made after Cameco said second-quarter profit fell 27 percent to C$150 million ($141.7 million) as output and sales of uranium declined.

``We expect that there will be an overhang on the stock until management provides more details on Cigar Lake, which is not expected until the end of September,'' TD Newcrest analyst Greg Barnes said today in a note to clients. Barnes said he doesn't expect the mine to open before mid-2013.

Barnes, based in Toronto, is one of at least six analysts who have cut their share-price targets since Aug. 12, when Cameco reported the latest setback at Cigar Lake. The mine is expected to produce 18 million pounds of uranium a year at full capacity, or about 10 percent of global consumption, the company has said.

Looking for Causes

Cameco, which had expected to start the mine in 2011 at the earliest, said yesterday it will take time to understand the source of the latest flooding and how to fix it.

``No doubt this is going to delay things,'' Grandey said yesterday on a conference call with investors and analysts. ``We've got to understand where the inflow is coming and then, once we understand that, then we're going to develop a plan to deal with it.''

Water inflows in the mine's No. 1 shaft were running at a steady 25 cubic meters to 30 cubic meters an hour before the Aug. 12 inflow, Grandey said. The hourly flow rate then increased to about 600 cubic meters an hour.

``I'm convinced this is a significant setback for the Cigar Lake project,'' Blackmont Capital Corp. mining analyst George Topping said today in a telephone interview from Toronto. Topping cut his price target to C$50 from C$55.
It's all about "how much you made when you were right" & "how little you lost when you were wrong"
User avatar
winston
Billionaire Boss
 
Posts: 112616
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:28 am

Re: Nuclear Energy

Postby LenaHuat » Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:14 pm

What's WB up to on energy, from WSJ:
Warren Buffett's decision to rescue Constellation Energy Group Inc. gives one of the nuclear power industry's biggest skeptics some important clout in deciding its future.

In agreeing to a $4.7-billion cash deal for Baltimore-based Constellation, Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. will gain control of three nuclear power plants. In addition, it will own half of a prominent nuclear-plant development company, UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC, which is trying to accelerate construction of the next generation of nuclear plants in the U.S.
Please be forewarned that you are reading a post by an otiose housewife. ImageImage**Image**Image@@ImageImageImage
User avatar
LenaHuat
Big Boss
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:35 am

Re: Uranium

Postby winston » Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:04 am

Can Thorium replace Uranium in Nuclear Reactors ?

Uranium Is So Last Century ”Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke" By Richard Martin

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
It's all about "how much you made when you were right" & "how little you lost when you were wrong"
User avatar
winston
Billionaire Boss
 
Posts: 112616
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:28 am

Re: Nuclear Energy

Postby winston » Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:44 am

I'm against Nuclear Energy. There has been countless accidents and the people staying close to the nuclear plants tend to have higher incidence of cancer, leukemia etc.

================================================

Vt. nuke plant: Tritium may be leaking from pipe

Vt. nuke plant officials suspect underground sump pit pipe could be source of tritium leak

AP News

Feb 05, 2010 22:23 EST

Officials at a Vermont nuclear plant say they're investigating the possibility that a leak in an underground pipe connected to a sump pit may be responsible for a radioactive substance turning up in groundwater samples at the plant.

Vermont Yankee plant officials said Friday they found tritium levels in the sump pit that are three times higher than those recently found in groundwater samples.

Officials say they've found 2.7 million picocuries per liter in the sump sample. They also say levels in a groundwater monitoring well have reached 834,000 picocuries — the highest reading yet for groundwater and more than 40 times higher than a federal safe drinking water limit.

The tritium leak was discovered last month. Tritium can cause cancer if it's ingested in large amounts.

Source: AP News
It's all about "how much you made when you were right" & "how little you lost when you were wrong"
User avatar
winston
Billionaire Boss
 
Posts: 112616
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:28 am

Re: Uranium

Postby winston » Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:46 am

The Price of This Commodity MUST Rise. It's Inevitable. By Chris Mayer, editor, Capital & Crisis

In the most recent issue of my Special Situations advisory, I showed my readers the most compelling resource investment around. I've spent the past month digging into this story and looking for the best opportunities. Here's what I've found.

The most compelling thing about uranium is probably best expressed in the chart below...

The uranium market has been in deficit for several years, living off the stockpiles of the Cold War. Put simply, we use more than we make.

Looking out to 2018, we're about 400 million pounds short. To get some perspective on that number, here is a look at the top 10 producers of uranium in 2009 and the percentage each makes up of the total market.

The top producers, which make up nearly 90% of the market, produced about 110 million pounds of uranium last year. So essentially, the industry needs to produce almost four times that to meet the estimated new demand through 2018. On an annual basis, the industry will need to about double in size.

A sidelight to this is the fact that 63% of all uranium comes from just 10 mines. This means that the global supply of uranium is susceptible to supply shocks. If one big mine floods or goes down for whatever reason, it'll make a big wave in the uranium market.

It gets even more interesting...

Most of the best mines are already in production. As with everything else in the resource world these days, the low-hanging fruit is all gone. Future grades will be lower, meaning we'll have to mine a lot more ore to get a given amount of uranium. New mines are in more geologically challenging places. New supply is also coming from riskier places, such as Africa and Kazakhstan. All of this means that costs will go up.

This tells you that at current production – about 130 million pounds – those last million pounds are a lot more expensive to produce than the first million pounds. It also means that as the industry ramps up beyond 130 million pounds to meet demand, costs will rise sharply.

This is not a perfect predictor, of course. There are new mines that will come online and produce uranium at low costs. But it bodes well for a higher uranium price in the future. The current spot price is around $45 a pound. Only around 10%–30% of the uranium traded in any year is sold on the spot market. Most uranium is sold to utilities via long-term contracts. The longer-term price of uranium is north of $60.

For some perspective on uranium pricing, consider that when uranium got hot in the summer of 2007, the spot price hit $136 a pound. It's done nothing but go down since then. If you are a contrarian thinker, which is to say a good investor, that fact will attract you. I can tell you with great certainty that the uranium price won't go to zero. That downward trend will reverse, and based on all the data I presented above, it looks like a higher uranium price over the next few years is a sure thing – or about as close to a sure thing as you can get in markets.

That's why the uranium price has to go up. If it doesn't, there is no incentive for producers to make more, and hence a lot of reactors are going to go without fuel. More importantly, it can go up. Simply put, the uranium price could double and it wouldn't affect the economics of a nuclear reactor much. This is not true with a lot of commodities. If the price of oil doubled, the global economy would double over in great pain and probably grind to a halt. Not so with uranium.

The biggest potential negative I see is the risk of some nuclear accident that derails this whole thesis as people abandon nuclear. But the industry has a clean safety record going back more than two decades now.

There are 436 reactors in the world that provide about 15% of the world's electricity. The new reactors have fewer moving parts and are much better than the old ones. And most of the world seems to be coming around to the green benefits of nuclear power; even President Obama's administration promises loan guarantees and other goodies for the builders of nuclear reactors. In our carbon-worried world, nuclear is a relatively clean source of energy.

For all these reasons, we see a massive buildup in reactors under construction, planned or proposed. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) says there are 52 reactors under construction, 135 reactors planned and 295 reactors proposed. This is what underpins that demand we talked about up top. Where are all those reactors going to be? Mostly, from China, India, Japan, and the U.S.

Once again, we have a resource story driven by China and India. Neither country produces much uranium. China produces less than 2% of the world's uranium. If you believe "buy what China needs," as I do, then uranium fits well with that worldview. In conclusion, I want to own uranium.

Source: Daily Wealth
It's all about "how much you made when you were right" & "how little you lost when you were wrong"
User avatar
winston
Billionaire Boss
 
Posts: 112616
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:28 am

Re: Nuclear Energy

Postby winston » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:19 pm

Hmmm.... can they withstand an earthquake ? 53 existing plants ...

Japan planning 14 nuclear plants: report

Resource-poor Japan is planning to build at least 14 nuclear power plants over the next 20 years to reduce its reliance on other countries for its energy needs, a report said Sunday.

The world's second biggest economy, which wants to double its provision for its fuel consumption, will make an announcement in June on whether it indends to press ahead with the plants, the Nikkei business daily said.

Japan has few energy resources and relies on nuclear power from 53 plants for nearly one third of its domestic electricity needs.

The government is eager to boost its energy self-sufficiency ratio which stands at 18 percent at home and at 38 percent with government and corporate interests overseas taken into account, the report said.

The government is looking to build eight nuclear plants by 2020 and at least six more by 2030 to double the figure to 70 percent. It will provide funding to companies looking to work on nuclear power projects overseas, the report said.

Source: AFP Asian Edition
It's all about "how much you made when you were right" & "how little you lost when you were wrong"
User avatar
winston
Billionaire Boss
 
Posts: 112616
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:28 am

PreviousNext

Return to Commodities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests