Uranium Energy Shares Run the Risk of a Full Meltdown

• Report this Comment On June 10, 2011, at 1:46 PM, bulllion wrote:

  I thought I remember reading numerous times that the demand for uranium is a lot more than the supply, especially when you consider the Asian reactors that are going to be built in the future as well as other countries. Germany has a small number of reactors compared to China, France and the U.S.

  Where is Germany going to get its power in the future, from additional solar and wind farms? Where is the land coming from for these farms in a relatively small country like Germany? Are they going to eliminate food crop farms, but then that means even more food imported from other countries, in a time when the global food crises is getting worse and worse?

  I like getting the greenhouse gases decreased and safer forms of energy, but it doesn't seem possible, when you consider the other sacrifices involved. Let’s be realistic here. We can panic and say that Nuclear Energy is so unsafe or we can use Nuclear energy and save the planet from further greenhouse effects. I read somewhere that the reactor in Japan was only weeks away from its 40-year expiration date. I am sure the Japanese are wishing they hadn’t waited to the last minute before shutting down the reactor and building another one.

• Report this Comment On June 10, 2011, at 1:55 PM, lifespanplus wrote:

  You people are smart and should consider these issues from a macro standpoint. First, the Japan and Germany situations affected only some 5% of nuclear plants. The remaining 95% are still operating and new plants are coming on line. There is a projected shortage of uranium said to be appearing the latter part of 2011. The actual numbers are available. UEC is wise to store product.

  Cash uranium is at $56, but future contracts, where most uranium is sold, are at $68 to $72.The supply void, for the last several years, has been filled by Russian conversion of warheads which is almost over. According to the European Nuclear Society, as of Jan 19,2011, in 30 countries 442 nuclear power plants with an installed electric net capacity of about 375GW are in operation and 65 plants with an installed capacity of 63GW are in 16 countries under construction. The fuel now all has to be supplied by mines.

  The public is hysterical and the press keeps fanning the flames, but consider CO2 generation from coal, oil, and gas, and the rising sea level.(not to mention the hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, heat, and generally weird weather lately) That wind and solar can adequately supply electricity needs in the future is an illusion, and already industrialists in Germany are complaining about projected electricity costs .And look at oil from a demand standpoint with China now the largest car manufacturer in the world. What will happen to price and the effect on world economies?

  I would suggest that you do more research, look at the AEC and ENS data and other sources, write the Energy Secretary as I have and tell him to get on the ball, and tell your clients that they will double their money in one or two years with UEC, URRA,URA,NUCL, and others, and to get in on the ground floor.

• Report this Comment On June 10, 2011, at 3:29 PM, fireofenergy1 wrote:

  Had the world went with the molten salt reactor, and especially, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor or LFTR, the world's nuclear accidents would NOT have happened!

  Please search LFTR then once you know that it is like a thousand times safer and better than the light water reactor aka conventional, tell everyone! It has been demonstrated and proven at ORNL and only needs a little bit of research to make it become the world’s best clean and rather cheap UNLIMITED energy choice.

  LFTR and its type are the only hope (unless renewables and batteries/energy storage becomes like TEN times cheaper) because not only can they reverse global warming, they address the problems of fossil fueled depletion and economic chaos.

• Report this Comment On June 10, 2011, at 6:16 PM, rfaramir wrote:

  Sounds like being "forced to sit on a stockpile" is like being thrown into the briar patch. The price will rise in a few months, with the end of Russia's weapon supply, won't it?

  Sean Williams has a lot of insight, but he's often short-term focused. He even made a good call on shorting silver recently, which is not for the feint of heart.

• Report this Comment On June 10, 2011, at 10:55 PM, dondonsurvelo wrote:

  Energy Resources of Australia has had to stop mining uranium. They were the seventh largest supplier of uranium in the world and due to flooding in Australia, they have closed the mine until water can be pumped out and retention basins are at a safe level.

  They are buying uranium on the open market to satisfy their contracts. At some point UEC's uranium will be bought due to the shortages that will start to show up.

• Report this Comment On June 11, 2011, at 9:59 PM, puzzled48 wrote:

  Jeff W. Earkens, Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at U. Missouri, wrote a book (Springer 2010) called, "The Nuclear Imperative."

  He believes the "out-of-oil" date for the U.S. is about 18 years from now, and the "no coal" date is about 150 years away. Before these dates arrive, high prices for oil will generate poverty and famine. Coal should be conserved, and used to manufacture plastics, rather than being burnt for electricity generation.

  We will need to manufacture synthetic fuels for transportation, to replace oil. To manufacture synfuels will require massive amounts of electriicity. Liquid ammonia is the most promising synfuel, according to Eerkens..

  He proposes that by 2050, we must build 700 "breeder reactors" (can consume both U-235 and U-238 isotopes for fuel) rather than "burner" reactors (consume U-235 which is only 0.7% of the uranium ore). Then, we will have sufficient uranium to generate electriciy for 3,000 years. He estimates 700 breeder reactors would generate about 700 Gw of power, assuming 1 Gw per unit. This compares with 100 Gw power per year from our supply of 104 "burner" reactors.

  The only "breeder" reactors in the world are in France, Russia, and Japan. They cost about 10% more than "burners", and therefore are scarce.

  The 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S. generate about 100 barrels of nuclear waste annually, which can easily be buried.

  Safety concerns are trivial, but are exaggerated by radical environmentalists. Meltdowns, the worst case scenario, at Chernobyl resulted in 57 deaths, Three Mile Island meltdown resulted in no deaths, and Fukushima resulted in a few radiation deaths, compared with thousands of tidal wave and earthquake deaths.

  If Professor Eerkens is right, a nuclear future is inevitable. Investors must then decide whether nuclear mining companies are fairly priced. This question is much more perplexing, for me, than the question of which fuel will be used to generate electricity during the next millenium.. The science is straightforwards, but the economics are baffling.........

  puzzled48

Add your comment.