Logo
Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome to ShareScene - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Australia's Sharemarket Community - New Here? Click To Register >

180 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > »    
 
  
Reply to this topic

Uranium, Discussion
The End of Nuclear Power?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 134
Guests cannot vote 
frodo
post Posted: Jun 12 2015, 03:50 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 2,973
Thanks: 86


In Reply To: arty's post @ Jun 12 2015, 11:46 AM

Arty also ERA said that their lease due to expire around 2020 so maybe it wont get renewed who knows.

I was going to add PDN to watch as its so cheap but need to do a little more rsearch on it first.

 
arty
post Posted: Jun 12 2015, 11:46 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 12,406
Thanks: 3046


In Reply To: abner29's post @ Jun 5 2015, 11:10 PM

ERA announced today it won't proceed with Ranger 3:
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displ...;idsId=01632637

RIO's reply sounds even more "terminal":
QUOTE
Energy Resources of Australia Ltd - Ranger 3 Deeps Project Update
11 June 2015
Rio Tinto acknowledges Energy Resources of Australia Ltd’s (ERA) release to the Australian Securities Exchange on 11 June 2015, in which it announced it has decided it would not proceed with the Final Feasibility Study of the Ranger 3 Deeps project in the current operating environment.
Rio Tinto agrees with the decision not to progress the study. After careful consideration, Rio Tinto has determined that it does not support any further study or the future development of Ranger 3 Deeps due to the project’s economic challenges.
Rio Tinto recognises the importance of ongoing rehabilitation work at the Ranger mine site, which is surrounded by the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park. Rio Tinto is engaged with ERA on a conditional credit facility to assist ERA to fund its rehabilitation program, should additional funding be required beyond ERA’s existing cash reserves and the future earnings from processing ore stockpiles.
Rio Tinto is assessing a potential non-cash impairment charge of approximately US$300 million* (post tax) relating to its shareholding in ERA.

However, demand for reactor fuel is unlikely to drop to zero any time soon, which should offer increased sales opportunities for other U-miners.
Looking at PDN's chart, it seems I'm not alone with that opinion.

Disclosure: I hold PDN and TOE



--------------------
I trade daily, but I am not a licensed adviser. Whether you find my ideas reasonable or not: The only person responsible for your actions is YOU.
I follow two rules: (1) There are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. (2) Whatever is inconsistent with observed facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Market as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be. (inspired by Carl Sagan)

Said 'Thanks' for this post: early birds  abner29  
 
abner29
post Posted: Jun 5 2015, 11:10 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,168
Thanks: 1732


Looming 15% uranium market supply gap could spur price revival – Cameco 4th June 2015 By: Henry Lazenby Creamer Media Deputy Editor: North America EMAIL THIS ARTICLE © Reuse this Photo by Cameco TORONTO (miningweekly.com) – An emerging 15% supply gap could signal a prolonged upturn in the uranium price through to 2024, Canadian uranium major Cameco said on Thursday. A decline in secondary sources of yellowcake was forcing the market to increasingly rely on primary suppliers, which, when coupled with unprecedented growth in the nuclear reactor industry, foretold improved market conditions over the medium and long term, investor relations director Rachelle Girard told the Cantor Fitzgerald Annual Global Uranium Conference, in New York. NYSE- and TSX-listed Cameco expected the market to expand at 4% a year to about 230-million pounds of uranium oxide a year by 2024, a far cry from today’s output of about 140-million pounds, excluding projects under development. The company was the world’s largest publicly traded uranium producer and owned and operated the largest uranium mines in the prolific Athabasca basin of Saskatchewan, from which the company produced about 16% of the global supply. Worldwide, about 63 new nuclear reactors were under construction, but the world’s insatiable need for electricity could see a further 81 more nuclear reactors come on line in the future. The global uranium market had been stumped by Japan's March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, which prompted all nuclear reactors to be shut down in Japan. The natural-disaster induced crisis had created significant global uranium market backlash and public opinions about the safety of using nuclear-derived power took a beating. This had eroded demand and caused a global supply glut, as the Japanese nuclear fleet remained largely offline. Girard said Cameco was currently looking to lock-in future contracts, but noted that the market was not currently entertaining new contracts, as high inventories and the soft demand were affording buyers the opportunity to wait and see whether prices would fall further. Contracts provided the company with revenue protection from current market uncertainty. The volatile uranium price had traded in a ten-year band of just under $140/lb in 2007 and a $30/lb low last year. Cameco saw $40/lb as a floor for the uranium price and noted that a price of at least $70/lb would be required to incentivise it to invest in new development projects. MARKET OPTIMISM Girard said Japanese reactor restarts could kickstart uranium demand growth and start clearing the excess market supply. However, the low-price environment was keeping investment low in new uranium development projects, which could see the primary uranium producers finding it difficult to keep up with demand, once the market started to rebound. “The world needs four more Cigar Lakes to keep up with future demand,” Girard stressed. China would account for 57 new nuclear reactors by 2024, while Indian nuclear-sector growth was poised to take off with 16 new reactors expected to be built by then. Cameco’s recent C$350-million deal to supply more than seven-million pounds of uranium concentrate to India had opened the door to a significant previously inaccessible market, Girard noted. Other developing regions such as the Middle East, Southern Africa and South America were also expected to increasingly draw on the demand side. And when the inevitable global market improvement started gaining sustained traction, Cameco would be waiting in the wings, able to quickly ramp-up output to about 30% of the global output by 2024. “Cameco has the pounds in the ground when the market calls for it,” Girard said. The company’s inventory comprised 429-million pounds of proven and probable uranium reserves and extensive mineral resources. Cameco expected to produce between 25.3-million pounds and 26.3-million pounds of uranium oxide this year. The company’s crown jewel – McArthur River – was the world's biggest high-grade uranium mine with an average ore grade of 14.87% uranium oxide. Grades were 100 times the world average, which meant the operation could produce more than 18-million pounds of uranium a year by mining ore at a rate of only 150 t/d to 200 t/d. Recently completed and future expansions could also see the Key Lake mill, 80 km south-west by road, where McArthur’s ore was blended for processing with low-grade ore in stockpile, ramp up to 25-million pounds of uranium a year. The company had also, just last month, declared commercial production at the world’s second-largest high-grade uranium mine, Cigar Lake. The eight-million-pound-a-year operation was considered to be among the world’s most technologically challenging deposits to mine and required the underground ore to be artificially frozen to improve underground mine stability, prevent water inflow and improve radiation protection. Cameco expected Cigar Lake to ramp up to its full production rate of 18-million pounds by 2018. The company's TSX-listed stock had traded in a 52-week range between C$16.73 and C$23.26 apiece, and on Thursday changed hands at C$19.23. Edited by: Tracy Hancock



 
arty
post Posted: Feb 20 2015, 12:38 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 12,406
Thanks: 3046


In case members haven't noticed: Kcast from Kitco has added Base Metals to its menu.
Charts on offer include Al, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn and Uranium.

Attached Image






--------------------
I trade daily, but I am not a licensed adviser. Whether you find my ideas reasonable or not: The only person responsible for your actions is YOU.
I follow two rules: (1) There are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. (2) Whatever is inconsistent with observed facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Market as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be. (inspired by Carl Sagan)

Said 'Thanks' for this post: abner29  
 
abner29
post Posted: Dec 19 2014, 08:09 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,168
Thanks: 1732


** Japan Okays Two More Nuclear Reactors (http://resourceinvestingnews.us2.list-mana...mp;e=32d982a067

 
abner29
post Posted: Nov 26 2014, 12:47 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,168
Thanks: 1732


<h1 itemprop="name headline">Restarting The Atomic Age? Lockheed Martin Announces Break-Through In Nuclear Fusion</h1> Monday November 24, 2014 15:08



In post-war USA, “Skunk Works” was Lockheed Martin’s near-autonomous research and development group that gave the country products like the “U-2” spy plane or the “SR-71 Blackbird”, pushing technology to limits no one else had dared to explore before.

A “Skunk Works” team headed by Thomas McGuire, MIT graduate and aeronautical engineer at a division humbly named “Revolutionary Technology Programs” recently presented their new “Compact Fusion Reactor” (CFR), a device which Lockheed claims will be small enough to fit on an eighteen-wheeler and be capable of providing enough power for a city of a hundred thousand people.

Nuclear fusion is, in a way, the opposite of nuclear fission, the process used in nuclear power plants around the world today. Nuclear fusion has been a long-time dream of scientists, oft attempted but never accomplished, the challenge being to obtain more energy from the reaction constantly than is afforded to run it. It’s, as Lockheed points out, what the sun has been doing for us for a very long time.

In recent years we did, however, see promising results by many different research organizations around the world working different angles to find a solution. The different processes typically use deuterium which can be obtained from water, and tritium which is obtained from lithium meaning that resources are abundant. These developments are relevant to technology metals in several of ways:

  • A process presented by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory earlier this year uses gold as containment vessel;
  • Magnets used for plasma confinement, although secret in their individual composition, are likely to contain significant amounts of magnetic rare earth elements such as neodymium.
  • Related technologies like low energy nuclear reaction and transmutation utilize precious metals, or claim to produce technology metals as reaction byproducts.

In simple words, this is how nuclear fusion works: two hydrogen isotopes, in this case deuterium and tritium, are released into a container under vacuum. When a sufficient amount of energy is added, the gas breaks up into ions and electrons, creating “plasma.” This plasma is incredibly hot; too hot for the containment vessel to withst and. Therefore, very strong magnets are used to prevent it from touching the container walls. This, in theory, causes the ions to collide and fuse together. The process then frees up neutrons that carry the released energy through the magnetic field to the reactor wall, where heat exchangers make it usable to power a turbine generator.

To be clear, what the Lockheed team achieved so far is to contain the plasma within the magnetic field. They did not accomplish an “ignition” of the reaction which is the self-sustaining reaction required to make a practical energy source. This latter part is considered the much bigger challenge according to those who have failed. McGuire is optimistic, though: “We would like to get to a prototype in five generations. If we can meet our plan of doing a design-build-test generation every year, that will put us at about five years…,” he said in an interview. If all goes well, the technology may be ready for production in about 10-15 years.

Lockheed estimates that less than 25kg of fuel would be required to run the device for an entire year. What is more, the units produce only very small amounts of radioactivity contained in steel elements of the shell, radioactivity that will reach safe levels after approximately 100 years, compared to the much longer decay periods of radioactive waste material from conventional nuclear power reactors.

Has the energy crisis been solved? Of course it is too soon to tell – despite the demonstrative optimism the Skunk Works team has a long way to go. One thing is clear: if they win, technology metals win.

Bodo Albrecht,
tminsider@eniqma.com




 


abner29
post Posted: Nov 25 2014, 06:48 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,168
Thanks: 1732



China to Need 1,000 Nuclear Reactors as Part of Climate Pledge?
Sunday November 23, 2014, 9:45pm PST China could need about 1,000 nuclear reactors, 500,000 wind turbines or 50,000 solar farms as it gears up to fight climate change. Currently, 23 nuclear reactors are built in the country, with a further 26 under construction.





 
abner29
post Posted: Oct 24 2014, 07:37 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,168
Thanks: 1732



Are Uranium Stocks Being Unfairly Punished?
Wednesday October 22, 2014, 3:25pm PDT


By Henry Bonner
Uranium stocks are becoming collateral damage in the sell-off in oil over the last couple of months. Since mid-July, oil is down around 20% from $102 per barrel to $83 as of October 201. This has also become a problem for many uranium stocks. Uranium Energy Corp. is down around 27% in the three months ending October 20 2, Fission Uranium Corp. has lost over 30%,3and big uranium producer Cameco Corp. is off 20% in the same time frame.4

‘I guess the market thinks you can put oil in a nuclear reactor,’ said Steve Todoruk, who joined Sprott Global Resource Investments Ltd. in 2003.

I protested: ‘couldn’t cheap oil reduce demand for nuclear power?’

Steve explains why he doesn’t think that’s the real explanation:

During the first seven months of the year, oil stocks were the darlings of the market, and many investors were recognizing significant gains on their oil positions.

During most of that time, uranium prices continued to fall, eventually bottoming out at $28 per pound5, and uranium stocks were generally hated.

Right around the time that oil prices started falling, uranium spot prices started to rise. Usually, resource stocks rise in tandem with their underlying commodity, sometimes more rapidly due to their leverage to the commodity’s price.

So why did uranium stocks take a dive along with oil, when the price of uranium itself rose?

What appears to have happened is that investors dumped their energy stocks in an effort to lock in their oil stock gains when oil prices began to fall. Uranium stocks were simply caught in the sell-off.

The demand for uranium is in fact well-insulated from the price of other power sources, at least in the near and medium term.

You can’t re-fit a uranium power plant to use oil. The price of oil would have to remain low for so long that existing reactors could be taken off-line and new oil-fueled plants could be built to replace them. Because the cost of uranium is very low relative to the cost of building the plants, it’s unlikely that existing plants would simply be switched off.

In the long term, I don’t think that oil will remain so cheap that it will make sense to replace nuclear power with oil-generated power.

This irrational selling in the uranium stocks has created, in my opinion, a buying opportunity.

When oil prices level out and the panic selling has subsided, I suspect that value investors will notice that uranium stocks are oversold and undervalued, possibly buying into them and driving them back up to where they were trading prior to when oil began its decent.

I’m not expecting to see uranium stocks lift off and go to much higher share prices immediately, because I still believe that the cyclical upturn in uranium prices will be a long, slow process. Still, a reversal back to the share prices we saw earlier this year in uranium stocks may offer attractive short-term gains.





 
abner29
post Posted: Oct 21 2014, 02:45 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,168
Thanks: 1732



A Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion? Lockheed Martin Thinks So
Sunday October 19, 2014, 10:10pm PDT

By Vivien Diniz+ - Exclusive to Uranium Investing News



American defense and advanced technology company Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) announced last week that it has taken a revolutionary step forward in the field of nuclear fusion. The breakthrough, the company claims, could solve the world’s energy crisis. To test its theory, Lockheed will be building and testing a compact fusion reactor in less than a year.

Checking in at about 10 times smaller than current reactors, Lockheed hopes to develop and deploy new compact fusion reactors in as little as 10 years.

How it works

Still in the experimental phase, nuclear fusion happens when two kinds of hydrogen atoms (deuterium and tritium) come together at high speeds, forming new atomic molecules known as ion plasma.

Lockheed is working on magnetic confinement techniques to reduce the size of nuclear fusion reactors. With its compact design, the company has found a way to constrain the plasma within a specifically shaped magnetic field. The magnetic field works to contain the expanding plasma, effectively making it so that the plasma works to contain itself.

If successful, Lockheed Martin’s compact fusion reactor could change the energy landscape as we know it. As CNET explains, one of the most interesting features of Lockheed’s announcement is the size of the reactor. At the size of a “large truck,” the company has said its reactor could be built in a factory and shipped around the world.

“Our compact fusion concept combines several alternative magnetic confinement approaches, taking the best parts of each, and offers a 90 percent size reduction over previous concepts,” said Tom McGuire, compact fusion lead for Skunk Works’ Revolutionary Technology Programs, in a company statement.

Breakthrough technology

As the Daily Mail UK reported, “Lockheed’s work on fusion energy could help developing new power sources amid increasing global conflicts over energy.”

With energy use expected to increase by 40 to 50 percent in the next generation, commercialization of nuclear fusion could present the world with an alternative to nuclear fission and fossil fuels. In fact, while the task may not be an easy one, Wired explains, “fusion’s clean energy has the potential to power naval vessels and aircrafts with effectively unlimited range using mere pounds of fuel.”

Nuclear fusion isn’t a new technology by any means. It just hasn’t been perfected yet. But that hasn’t stopped Lockheed’s McGuire from moving forward. ”We can make a big difference on the energy front,” McGuire said, noting that fusion is safer and more efficient than current reactors based on nuclear fission.

Missing piece

The company anticipates being able to complete, design and build its reactor in as early as a year. From here, the countdown looks to be about 10 years to produce an operational reactor. So what’s missing?

A partner.

Lockheed has been working on the secretive Skunk Works compact reactors for roughly four years and has chosen this time to go public in hopes of finding government and industry partners. With the added partnership, the dream could soon be a reality in the race to redefine energy as it is today.






Said 'Thanks' for this post: mcart117  
 
abner29
post Posted: Sep 9 2014, 11:44 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,168
Thanks: 1732



Paving the way for nuclear in Australia
09 September 2014

Australia's potential utilization of nuclear energy is several years away, but a roadmap has been drawn up by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) to clear the path for this, writes Warwick Pipe.

Almost all of Australia's current baseload generating capacity is provided by coal-fired plants, many of which are due to be retired over the next 20-30 years.

ATSE notes nuclear energy offers near-zero greenhouse gas emissions for baseload power supply. Levelised cost of energy modelling by the Australian Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics suggests that nuclear power, in the 2030 to 2050 timeframe, is economically competitive with a broad range of other low or zero emission baseload technologies.

However, despite having the world's largest known uranium resources, Australia has not utilized these for domestic power generation. According to ATSE, "On economic, social and environmental considerations in an international carbon-constrained policy environment, nuclear power should be included as an option for baseload power supply in Australia."

The academy says that nuclear power in Australia "does not yet have a social licence to operate or wide public support." Its use has been actively opposed by Australian governments at all levels for decades, it said. "Should Australia consider deploying nuclear power the need to first address community concerns is paramount," ATSE suggests. "Open public engagement is essential and the process should begin now."

ATSE has drawn up its Nuclear Energy Action Statement that supports its Energy Position Statement published in May. This "sets out the challenges and priority areas for, and a way forward to, low emission energy systems that are affordable, secure and reliable to support Australia's sustainable development and future prosperity." The Action Statement, developed by a team of academy fellows expert in nuclear energy, led by the chair of ATSE's Energy Forum Martin Thomas, seeks to generate open informed debate on the technology and its potential to take a place in the nation's future generation portfolio.

The soon-to-be-published Action Statement makes seven recommendations to progress nuclear as an energy option for Australia: a comprehensive business/economic analysis should be undertaken; alternative energy scenarios to the 2030-2050 timeframe should be evaluated; and active and open community engagement should commence, while a review of current policies that preclude its consideration is carried out. Current educational and training activities should be built on, including through secondments. It also recommends that regulatory requirements should be examined to determine the actions needed. Lastly, it calls for a strengthening of Australia's current overseas R&D program linkages, for example in thorium fission and hydrogen fusion.

"Australia's adoption of nuclear power generation will require a significantly enhanced regulatory regime, a process that will take several years," ATSE says. "An early start is needed to examine thoroughly the relevant issues to ensure readiness. This includes studies of nuclear power plant siting options, legal and regulatory frameworks, projected skills needs and appropriate educational and training facilities and regimes including seconding qualified Australians for training in overseas nuclear power plants."

"An extensive and openly transparent community engagement process should begin to build understanding of the benefits and safety of nuclear energy including gathering a deeper understanding of the attitudes of Australians," ATSE suggests.

Warwick Pipe





 
 


180 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareScene.com, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING