YUKON RES. - GERÜCHTE über neuen INVESTOR - 500 Beiträge pro Seite
eröffnet am 27.02.06 19:22:11 von
neuester Beitrag 20.03.06 14:48:13 von
neuester Beitrag 20.03.06 14:48:13 von
Beiträge: 33
ID: 1.043.546
ID: 1.043.546
Aufrufe heute: 0
Gesamt: 2.716
Gesamt: 2.716
Aktive User: 0
ISIN: US65342W1099 · WKN: A2DQQN
0,0730
USD
+4,66 %
+0,0033 USD
Letzter Kurs 10.01.18 Nasdaq OTC
Neuigkeiten
Werte aus der Branche Stahl und Bergbau
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 0,6040 | +129,64 | |
| 618,00 | +17,71 | |
| 0,5990 | +14,29 | |
| 102,30 | +13,86 | |
| 7.732,00 | +13,71 |
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 6,9900 | -7,05 | |
| 67,92 | -9,99 | |
| 9,5000 | -11,21 | |
| 4,1000 | -13,68 | |
| 0,6200 | -19,48 |
Feedback
vielleicht hat jemand info zu dieser Aktie
2006-02-14 12:18 ET - News Release
VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- (Business Wire) -- Feb. 14, 2006
Yukon Resources Corp. (OTCBB:YUKR) announced today that
effective February 10, 2006, the Company has entered into a letter of
intent with Rodinia Minerals Inc. in which Yukon Resources will have
the right and option to acquire a 75% undivided right, title and
interest in and to "Red Bluff", "Middleton Mountain", "Buckaroo
Flats" and "Pendleton Mesa" Uranium properties located in Gila
County, Arizona.
Background Information
In 1955 The United States Atomic Energy Commission conducted an
Airborne Radiometric Survey over Gila Country and discovered 20
radiometric anomalies, nine of which, including the recent
acquisitions by Yukon Resources Corp., were considered significant.
This survey has led to the identification of 46 known uranium
deposits in the area.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- (Business Wire) -- Feb. 14, 2006
Yukon Resources Corp. (OTCBB:YUKR) announced today that
effective February 10, 2006, the Company has entered into a letter of
intent with Rodinia Minerals Inc. in which Yukon Resources will have
the right and option to acquire a 75% undivided right, title and
interest in and to "Red Bluff", "Middleton Mountain", "Buckaroo
Flats" and "Pendleton Mesa" Uranium properties located in Gila
County, Arizona.
Background Information
In 1955 The United States Atomic Energy Commission conducted an
Airborne Radiometric Survey over Gila Country and discovered 20
radiometric anomalies, nine of which, including the recent
acquisitions by Yukon Resources Corp., were considered significant.
This survey has led to the identification of 46 known uranium
deposits in the area.
Interessant ist hier, dass es sich hier um ein Team handelt, dass sich schon mehrmals sehr erfolgreich bewährt hat. Dass ist schon ein wichtiger Faktor!
Trading Spotlight
Yukon Res. ist eine interessante Wette auf den Bullenmarkt im Uran!
Denke, dass hier etwas sehr interessantes mit großen Potential kommt.
Es sind zwar allgemien noch nicht so viele Informationen zu fnden, aber das wird sich bestimmt noch ändern. Umso besser für die, die eine guten Riecher haben und früh in die Aktie einsteigen!
Das Management Team hat es immerhin geschafft, dass Marktcap. von US$ 20 Mio auf US$ 400 Mio zu steigern.
Gerade die steigende Nachfrage nach Uran, die insbesondere in der nächsten zeit immer größer wird, macht das Unternehmen noch interessanter.
Vergleicht man dieses Unternehmen mit den andern Unternehmen so ist eindeutig zu sehen, dass der Vorteil in der Unternehmungsführung liegt. Ein elementarer Punkt, in dem die anderen meistens Defizite aufweisen!
Abschließend für heute:
Strong buy!
Strong buy!
Man kann zwar noch nicht sehr viel an Informationen über Yukon Resources finden. Aber generell ist zusagen, dass Uran immer interessanter werden wird.
Aber wenn sie es richtig anpacken und die Firmenführung weiter an vorhergehende Erfolge anknüppf, bin ich mal gespannt, was da auf uns zukommen wird.
habt ihr euch mal den chart von Canwest angeschaut?
@ silberbraer
Auf jeden Fall sehr interessant!
Auf jeden Fall sehr interessant!
Yukon ist im Moment in Frankfurt billig zu haben!
Stroooong buuy!
Stroooong buuy!
Werde ich auf jeden Fall zuschlagen in Frankfurt! Sehe genauso Potenzial in der Aktie!
Der Vorteil von Yukon ist einfach, dass noch immer wenige von der Exsistenz Bescheid wissen und deshalb der Bekanntheitsgrad noch relativ gering ist. SOmit ist man Teil der "Anfänge"!
Es ist im Moment einfach eins der Papiere, was momentan noch zu einem sehr günstigen Preis, wenn nicht sogar SPottpreis, gehandelt wird. Somit ist jetzt der perfekt Zeitpunkt zum kaufen.
Bleibe von dem Potenzial von Yukon überzeugt. Jetzt in Frankfurt noch günstig zu haben, bald ist es zu spät.
Strong buy ist auch meine Empfehlung!
Bin neu hier an Board. Glaube auch , dass man in Uran investiert sein sollte. Werden eine Menge neuer Power Plants gebaut.
Uranium: Still the Top Commodity
Uranium doubters got a wake up call earlier this month when Westinghouse, the giant of nuclear plant construction, was purchased by Toshiba.
Although it was known that Westinghouse—which sells technology to 50% of the world’s nuclear power plants—was up for bids, no one expected it to fetch so much: $5.4 billion. That’s three times the $1.8 billion price tag most analysts had put on the deal.
Explaining the buy, Toshiba stated that it expects annual revenues from its nuclear division to more than triple over the next ten years, reaching $5.9 billion by 2015. By paying so much for Westinghouse, Toshiba has put its money where its mouth is.
A look at the stats suggests that Toshiba’s moneymen are right. Growing demand for nuclear power in the U.S. alone should carry the industry higher. Over the past two decades, American nuclear generation capacity has nearly tripled. More importantly, utilization of nuclear capacity—the percentage of available generating capacity actually being used—has increased steadily, and now is over 90%. So, if power demand continues to grow, more reactors are going to be needed.
US Nuclear Power Generation is Up
The story is much the same all around the world. Demand for nuclear energy is booming. Just this month, Russia became the latest country to officially take up nuclear as a preferred power solution. With Russian energy demand growing 50% faster than anticipated, the Russian Federal Agency for Nuclear Power announced this month that it plans to increase Nuclear’s share to 25% of Russia’s overall energy mix. Currently atomic energy accounts for only 16%.
The Russians also plan to export nuclear power technology, building an archipelago of atomic plants around the globe that will generate a total of 60 gigawatts. That would mean 60 to 75 new reactors.
Will there be buyers for nuclear plants? They seem to be lining up. Last year, India signed a deal with the U.S. to gain access to reactors and other nuclear technology. And this January, the UK government kicked off a review of its energy policy, which is widely expected to open the door for added nuclear capacity. And China intends to build two new nuclear reactors per year for the next 20 years.
And what’s good for nuclear construction is good for uranium. In fact, even if none of the planned reactors ever gets built, the uranium market will still be in deficit for years, as suppliers struggle to meet current rates of consumption. On February 1, Cameco—the world’s largest uranium company—reported in its fourth-quarter conference call that world uranium demand hit 175 million pounds in 2005. Mine supply lagged severely, at 110 million pounds, or just 59% of world requirements. Inventories are shrinking.
Given this already-gaping shortfall, a boom in new reactor construction would send uranium prices into overdrive. Especially since buying uranium accounts for only 11.5% of the total cost of nuclear power generation. By contrast, fuel costs for oil and natural gas power plants tally 60-70% of total expenses. So, nuclear power producers can stomach a significant rise in uranium prices, without cutting back usage.
Of course, there are naysayers. Desjardins Securities argues that uranium will be in surplus by 2009. And, some believe, nuclear companies might do more to enrich uranium fuel stocks in order to reduce the amount of fuel that’s needed.
But our own research finds that if every uranium mine now being developed produces at maximum capacity, they will barely satisfy current rates of usage—even if no new nuclear plants are built and even if supply continues to be augmented with uranium from dismantled Russian weapons. And as we told you in the October 2005 Pipeline, the enrichment question has been dismissed by leading uranium analysts as a non-issue.
If Toshiba is right about the future of nuclear construction, yellowcake at $37.50 per pound could look ridiculously cheap in a few short years. That’s a good reason to assemble and hold a portfolio of solid uranium companies, the kind with a realistic chance to find and produce yellowcake.
Sunshine State Yellowcake
The more that uranium inventories decline, the louder the question gets: where will the world find more U3O8? The issue is particularly resonant in the U.S., where production has been in freefall for much of the last decade.
US Uranium Production is Down
but the production curve already has turned upward. And more than 20 companies are now exploring for and developing yellowcake resources in the lower 48. Most have flocked to past-producing mine districts in the Colorado Plateau, or to in-situ leach deposits in Wyoming and Texas.
But one state that hasn’t received any attention is Florida—despite holding some of the largest uranium reserves in the country and in some years producing over 15% of U.S. yellowcake output.
Few investors know that Florida has any uranium at all, probably because the resources found in the state are not typical. Florida’s uranium is contained in deposits of phosphate, a compound mined for fertilizer. Phosphate’s chemical properties make it glom onto uranium, and the two materials sit together in the same rocks.
Fertilizer producers used to make a tidy profit on by-product uranium. Eight plants were constructed in Florida and Louisiana to recover uranium from Floridian phosphate. But most were placed on stand-by during the later 1990s, when uranium prices sagged. The last two to close—International Mosaic’s Uncle Sam and Faustina facilities—together produced 950,000 pounds of uranium yearly, accounting for 16% of U.S. production in 1997. This is only slightly less than the 1.3 million pounds Cameco produced in 2005 at its Smith Ranch-Highland ISL facility in Wyoming. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that at uranium prices above $33.80, 2.1 million pounds of annual phosphate-uranium production in the U.S. would be economic.
International Mosaic shut down uranium recovery at Uncle Sam and Faustina “permanently” in 1998. But the equipment for processing yellowcake is still in place and could be restarted.
So, might we see these operations coming back to life, now that uranium is at its highest price since 1980? The company told us that management is indeed looking at restarting the works and pumping out more U3O8—but not for a year or more.
The economics are looking up. Historical operating costs for by-product uranium processing averaged between $22 and $54 per pound (although operators in Romania have reported costs as low as US$11). With uranium currently selling for $37.50 a pound, producers stand to make good money if costs can be brought to the low end of the spectrum.
In fact, uranium from phosphate has significant potential worldwide. Estimates show that existing fertilizer plants around the globe have the capacity to produce 29 million pounds of by-product uranium yearly. Large uranium-in-phosphate reserves are found in several countries: Brazil hosts some 62 million pounds of the stuff; Egypt, 18 million pounds; and Mexico’s Baja California region holds a staggering 330 million pounds.
Of course, much of the world’s phosphate-uranium processing capability has gone the way of the U.S. plants—rusting for nearly a decade amid low U3O8 prices. But with uranium now high and rising, all uranium producing schemes are getting new wind in the sails.
Fertilizer companies with uranium-producing facilities in the U.S. are too large to get much of a boost in share price from uranium (Int’l Mosaic weighs in at a hefty $6 billion market cap). But we’ll be keeping an eye on the sector, looking for ways to invest in this potential fast-track source of uranium.
Uranium doubters got a wake up call earlier this month when Westinghouse, the giant of nuclear plant construction, was purchased by Toshiba.
Although it was known that Westinghouse—which sells technology to 50% of the world’s nuclear power plants—was up for bids, no one expected it to fetch so much: $5.4 billion. That’s three times the $1.8 billion price tag most analysts had put on the deal.
Explaining the buy, Toshiba stated that it expects annual revenues from its nuclear division to more than triple over the next ten years, reaching $5.9 billion by 2015. By paying so much for Westinghouse, Toshiba has put its money where its mouth is.
A look at the stats suggests that Toshiba’s moneymen are right. Growing demand for nuclear power in the U.S. alone should carry the industry higher. Over the past two decades, American nuclear generation capacity has nearly tripled. More importantly, utilization of nuclear capacity—the percentage of available generating capacity actually being used—has increased steadily, and now is over 90%. So, if power demand continues to grow, more reactors are going to be needed.
US Nuclear Power Generation is Up
The story is much the same all around the world. Demand for nuclear energy is booming. Just this month, Russia became the latest country to officially take up nuclear as a preferred power solution. With Russian energy demand growing 50% faster than anticipated, the Russian Federal Agency for Nuclear Power announced this month that it plans to increase Nuclear’s share to 25% of Russia’s overall energy mix. Currently atomic energy accounts for only 16%.
The Russians also plan to export nuclear power technology, building an archipelago of atomic plants around the globe that will generate a total of 60 gigawatts. That would mean 60 to 75 new reactors.
Will there be buyers for nuclear plants? They seem to be lining up. Last year, India signed a deal with the U.S. to gain access to reactors and other nuclear technology. And this January, the UK government kicked off a review of its energy policy, which is widely expected to open the door for added nuclear capacity. And China intends to build two new nuclear reactors per year for the next 20 years.
And what’s good for nuclear construction is good for uranium. In fact, even if none of the planned reactors ever gets built, the uranium market will still be in deficit for years, as suppliers struggle to meet current rates of consumption. On February 1, Cameco—the world’s largest uranium company—reported in its fourth-quarter conference call that world uranium demand hit 175 million pounds in 2005. Mine supply lagged severely, at 110 million pounds, or just 59% of world requirements. Inventories are shrinking.
Given this already-gaping shortfall, a boom in new reactor construction would send uranium prices into overdrive. Especially since buying uranium accounts for only 11.5% of the total cost of nuclear power generation. By contrast, fuel costs for oil and natural gas power plants tally 60-70% of total expenses. So, nuclear power producers can stomach a significant rise in uranium prices, without cutting back usage.
Of course, there are naysayers. Desjardins Securities argues that uranium will be in surplus by 2009. And, some believe, nuclear companies might do more to enrich uranium fuel stocks in order to reduce the amount of fuel that’s needed.
But our own research finds that if every uranium mine now being developed produces at maximum capacity, they will barely satisfy current rates of usage—even if no new nuclear plants are built and even if supply continues to be augmented with uranium from dismantled Russian weapons. And as we told you in the October 2005 Pipeline, the enrichment question has been dismissed by leading uranium analysts as a non-issue.
If Toshiba is right about the future of nuclear construction, yellowcake at $37.50 per pound could look ridiculously cheap in a few short years. That’s a good reason to assemble and hold a portfolio of solid uranium companies, the kind with a realistic chance to find and produce yellowcake.
Sunshine State Yellowcake
The more that uranium inventories decline, the louder the question gets: where will the world find more U3O8? The issue is particularly resonant in the U.S., where production has been in freefall for much of the last decade.
US Uranium Production is Down
but the production curve already has turned upward. And more than 20 companies are now exploring for and developing yellowcake resources in the lower 48. Most have flocked to past-producing mine districts in the Colorado Plateau, or to in-situ leach deposits in Wyoming and Texas.
But one state that hasn’t received any attention is Florida—despite holding some of the largest uranium reserves in the country and in some years producing over 15% of U.S. yellowcake output.
Few investors know that Florida has any uranium at all, probably because the resources found in the state are not typical. Florida’s uranium is contained in deposits of phosphate, a compound mined for fertilizer. Phosphate’s chemical properties make it glom onto uranium, and the two materials sit together in the same rocks.
Fertilizer producers used to make a tidy profit on by-product uranium. Eight plants were constructed in Florida and Louisiana to recover uranium from Floridian phosphate. But most were placed on stand-by during the later 1990s, when uranium prices sagged. The last two to close—International Mosaic’s Uncle Sam and Faustina facilities—together produced 950,000 pounds of uranium yearly, accounting for 16% of U.S. production in 1997. This is only slightly less than the 1.3 million pounds Cameco produced in 2005 at its Smith Ranch-Highland ISL facility in Wyoming. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that at uranium prices above $33.80, 2.1 million pounds of annual phosphate-uranium production in the U.S. would be economic.
International Mosaic shut down uranium recovery at Uncle Sam and Faustina “permanently” in 1998. But the equipment for processing yellowcake is still in place and could be restarted.
So, might we see these operations coming back to life, now that uranium is at its highest price since 1980? The company told us that management is indeed looking at restarting the works and pumping out more U3O8—but not for a year or more.
The economics are looking up. Historical operating costs for by-product uranium processing averaged between $22 and $54 per pound (although operators in Romania have reported costs as low as US$11). With uranium currently selling for $37.50 a pound, producers stand to make good money if costs can be brought to the low end of the spectrum.
In fact, uranium from phosphate has significant potential worldwide. Estimates show that existing fertilizer plants around the globe have the capacity to produce 29 million pounds of by-product uranium yearly. Large uranium-in-phosphate reserves are found in several countries: Brazil hosts some 62 million pounds of the stuff; Egypt, 18 million pounds; and Mexico’s Baja California region holds a staggering 330 million pounds.
Of course, much of the world’s phosphate-uranium processing capability has gone the way of the U.S. plants—rusting for nearly a decade amid low U3O8 prices. But with uranium now high and rising, all uranium producing schemes are getting new wind in the sails.
Fertilizer companies with uranium-producing facilities in the U.S. are too large to get much of a boost in share price from uranium (Int’l Mosaic weighs in at a hefty $6 billion market cap). But we’ll be keeping an eye on the sector, looking for ways to invest in this potential fast-track source of uranium.
Q. How much nuclear power is used around the world?
16% of world electricity is generated from nuclear power, using uranium as the fuel.
Q. Why is it used?
Because in many places it produces electricity cheaper than alternatives, and does so cleanly - without toxic or carbon dioxide emissions. The electricity produced is continuous, reliable and on a relatively large scale, thus meeting the main kind of demand.
Today the environmental virtues of nuclear power are increasingly attractive also - it produces virtually no emissions.
Q. Why is it often not used?
In some places it would be more expensive than coal-fired or other plants - it largely depends on the cost of coal and/or gas where you want to generate the power.
Q. Why do some people object to it?
The reasons are complex and based more in values and outlook than rational discourse, but in every country there are those who object to certain technologies. Particular arguments supporting these sentiments include safety, wastes and possible weapons proliferation.
Q. What are the alternatives?
For large-scale, continuous reliable supply of electricity the only alternatives are normally coal and gas. Coal is plentiful and cheap but gives rise to about one kilogram of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Gas is a very valuable and versatile fuel and chemical feedstock. Renewables such as wind power though clean, are not an alternative because they cannot provide continuous reliable supply, let alone at low cost.
Q. Is it economic?
Generally it is, and France has become the world`s largest net exporter of power for this reason (80% of its electricity is nuclear). However, building nuclear plants in a country like [i.e.] Australia would result in slightly more expensive power because good-quality coal is so cheap. But if carbon dioxide emissions were costed in, nuclear would be competitive.
Q. Is it safe?
By any reckoning, it is the safest way of producing electricity, and in the western world it always has been.
Q. What about the wastes?
Virtually all the wastes are contained and managed, not released to the environment like most fossil fuel wastes. Some of the wastes are hot and very radioactive, but these are small in quantity and easily managed. They have never posed a significant hazard to anyone and are unlikely to do so. Long-term disposal of such wastes will be in deep geological repositories.
Some hazardous chemicals such as arsenic remain toxic forever - radioactive waste diminishes naturally with time and the means to isolate it from humans and the environment while it decays are simple and well-proven over more than 50 years. In fact the level of radioactivity in spent fuel drops to one thousandth of its original level in 40-50 years.
Q. Where does most uranium come from?
Just over half of the annual demand comes from mines - one third of this from Canada and nearly one quarter from Australia. Uranium was mined in 19 countries in 2004. A lot comes from Russian weapons stockpiles - recycled warheads, and in fact one tenth of all US electricity is from that source.
Of course uranium occurs naturally throughout the world`s crust - it is 500 times more abundant than gold and as common as tin.
Q. Do uranium mines leave a damaged environment?
No. Any mine is likely to have an impact on the immediate area of its operation, but environmental controls ensure that this does not extend to the surrounding environment. Also all mines now rehabilitate the site on conclusion of mining. Uranium mines are no exception. Most major uranium mines in Australia and Canada have (or operate under) ISO 14001 certification which sets and requires a very high international standard environmentally.
Q. What effect does nuclear power have on the environment?
Virtually none, since all wastes are contained and managed. The main environmental effect is where nuclear power is used instead of fossil fuels, which means that carbon dioxide emissions are avoided. Today well over two billion tonnes of such emission are avoided each year because of nuclear power - most important in relation to climate change concerns.
Q. What about radiation?
Radiation is naturally part of our environment - we are all exposed to it all the time. Nuclear power does not cause any harmful increase in our exposure to it. Radiation is scientifically understood, easily detected and precisely measured - radioactive materials are used in hundreds of ways to improve the quality of life for everyone.
Q. Does nuclear power give rise to nuclear weapons?
No. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, almost 60 years ago, are the only occasions on which atom bombs have been used in war and these preceded nuclear power for electricity. Civil nuclear power plants have never caused weapons proliferation
16% of world electricity is generated from nuclear power, using uranium as the fuel.
Q. Why is it used?
Because in many places it produces electricity cheaper than alternatives, and does so cleanly - without toxic or carbon dioxide emissions. The electricity produced is continuous, reliable and on a relatively large scale, thus meeting the main kind of demand.
Today the environmental virtues of nuclear power are increasingly attractive also - it produces virtually no emissions.
Q. Why is it often not used?
In some places it would be more expensive than coal-fired or other plants - it largely depends on the cost of coal and/or gas where you want to generate the power.
Q. Why do some people object to it?
The reasons are complex and based more in values and outlook than rational discourse, but in every country there are those who object to certain technologies. Particular arguments supporting these sentiments include safety, wastes and possible weapons proliferation.
Q. What are the alternatives?
For large-scale, continuous reliable supply of electricity the only alternatives are normally coal and gas. Coal is plentiful and cheap but gives rise to about one kilogram of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Gas is a very valuable and versatile fuel and chemical feedstock. Renewables such as wind power though clean, are not an alternative because they cannot provide continuous reliable supply, let alone at low cost.
Q. Is it economic?
Generally it is, and France has become the world`s largest net exporter of power for this reason (80% of its electricity is nuclear). However, building nuclear plants in a country like [i.e.] Australia would result in slightly more expensive power because good-quality coal is so cheap. But if carbon dioxide emissions were costed in, nuclear would be competitive.
Q. Is it safe?
By any reckoning, it is the safest way of producing electricity, and in the western world it always has been.
Q. What about the wastes?
Virtually all the wastes are contained and managed, not released to the environment like most fossil fuel wastes. Some of the wastes are hot and very radioactive, but these are small in quantity and easily managed. They have never posed a significant hazard to anyone and are unlikely to do so. Long-term disposal of such wastes will be in deep geological repositories.
Some hazardous chemicals such as arsenic remain toxic forever - radioactive waste diminishes naturally with time and the means to isolate it from humans and the environment while it decays are simple and well-proven over more than 50 years. In fact the level of radioactivity in spent fuel drops to one thousandth of its original level in 40-50 years.
Q. Where does most uranium come from?
Just over half of the annual demand comes from mines - one third of this from Canada and nearly one quarter from Australia. Uranium was mined in 19 countries in 2004. A lot comes from Russian weapons stockpiles - recycled warheads, and in fact one tenth of all US electricity is from that source.
Of course uranium occurs naturally throughout the world`s crust - it is 500 times more abundant than gold and as common as tin.
Q. Do uranium mines leave a damaged environment?
No. Any mine is likely to have an impact on the immediate area of its operation, but environmental controls ensure that this does not extend to the surrounding environment. Also all mines now rehabilitate the site on conclusion of mining. Uranium mines are no exception. Most major uranium mines in Australia and Canada have (or operate under) ISO 14001 certification which sets and requires a very high international standard environmentally.
Q. What effect does nuclear power have on the environment?
Virtually none, since all wastes are contained and managed. The main environmental effect is where nuclear power is used instead of fossil fuels, which means that carbon dioxide emissions are avoided. Today well over two billion tonnes of such emission are avoided each year because of nuclear power - most important in relation to climate change concerns.
Q. What about radiation?
Radiation is naturally part of our environment - we are all exposed to it all the time. Nuclear power does not cause any harmful increase in our exposure to it. Radiation is scientifically understood, easily detected and precisely measured - radioactive materials are used in hundreds of ways to improve the quality of life for everyone.
Q. Does nuclear power give rise to nuclear weapons?
No. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, almost 60 years ago, are the only occasions on which atom bombs have been used in war and these preceded nuclear power for electricity. Civil nuclear power plants have never caused weapons proliferation
Uran steht kurz vor 40 Dollar!!!!
39,50 aktuell
39,50 aktuell
Yukon ist dabei, sich zur heissesten Uranwette zu entwickeln.
Muss in jedes Uranportfolio!!!
Muss in jedes Uranportfolio!!!
Dines Interview, absolutes Muss fuer Uraniumbugs!!!!
http://www.howestreet.com/fbn/mediaplayer.php?fbnId=111
China announces plans to build 32 nuclear power plants in next 15 years
BEIJING The government says China will build 32 nuclear plants over the next 15 years.
The official China Securities Journal says with the new plants, the country`s nuclear generating capacity will reach four percent of the nation`s total, more than double current capacity.
The journal, citing the vice director of the state-run China National Nuclear Corporation, says China is considering building more plants in interior hinterland places. Most of China`s nine current nuclear power plants are in China`s developed coastal areas.
China`s government is investing heavily in nuclear power in an effort to meet its booming economy`s surging power demands and limit its reliance on imported oil.
http://www.howestreet.com/fbn/mediaplayer.php?fbnId=111
China announces plans to build 32 nuclear power plants in next 15 years
BEIJING The government says China will build 32 nuclear plants over the next 15 years.
The official China Securities Journal says with the new plants, the country`s nuclear generating capacity will reach four percent of the nation`s total, more than double current capacity.
The journal, citing the vice director of the state-run China National Nuclear Corporation, says China is considering building more plants in interior hinterland places. Most of China`s nine current nuclear power plants are in China`s developed coastal areas.
China`s government is investing heavily in nuclear power in an effort to meet its booming economy`s surging power demands and limit its reliance on imported oil.
RADIOACTIVE PROFITS
by Kevin Kerr
The Uranium market is one that is like a wild roller coaster, and many of the equities associated with it can make investors queasy from the ride. These equities are no different from many mining stocks; they have to be looked at very closely. Uranium trading was starting to become more stable, or so it seemed. Then, just as fast as it calmed down - bam! - it went right back up. In two the uranium price surged $5 to $29 in just two weeks last year.
After the market woke up and new buying came in, the ultra-precious metal`s price climbed another $4, which set the highest uranium price since the early 1980s. The new speculation was triggered by growing expectations that China, India and Russia were planning to build new reactors and more reactors would cause a run on the limited supply of uranium. This speculation may well be right, if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stats are even close to true.
According to a report by the IAEA, 130 new nuclear power plants may be built in the next 15 years. Who are the big players? The usual suspects, of course: China, India, Europe, Russia, etc. Nuclear power provides about 16% of the planet`s total annual electricity generation and 34% of the European Union`s needs. Trust me, they need it - a lot. When my wife Katrin and I were in Estonia recently, it was frigid cold. Likewise, people are freezing to death in Moscow, right now. Nuclear power is a key component to economic survival in both Eastern Europe and the European Union.
I couldn`t believe some of the stats for other countries that I found in a great nuclear energy report called Uraniumletter International:
"China: Announced that it plans to build up to 40 nuclear reactors within the next 15 years. Some experts feel this will increase the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power from 2.4% to 4%.
"India: Also getting aggressive and wants to increase mining of uranium ore at four mines, including the existing Jaduguda mine in Jharkhand. The country recently signed a nuclear energy agreement with the United States and could generate 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power in the next 10 years, compared with current production of 3,120 megawatts.
"France: Receives 78% of its electricity from nuclear power.
"Belgium: Gets almost 56% of its power from nuclear plants.
"Sweden: Close to 50% of Sweden`s power is nuclear.
"Switzerland, Japan and the United States: Nuclear power provides 40%, 25% and 20%, respectively.
"Korea: Currently uses about 40%, operating on 19 nuclear reactors, and is expected to increase its dependence on nuclear power up to 60% in three decades.
"Asia: Nuclear energy is becoming more and more vital to the growing economies. Without it, Asia`s bazillion factories would come to a grinding halt."
I’m not a historical scholar by any stretch, but I am a big history buff and the he history of atomic energy fascinates me. In the 1940s, the U.S. government began buying large amounts of uranium in the effort to produce the world`s first atomic bomb.
I mean, a country didn`t simply go down to Wal-Mart in those days and buy some. So, it was a major undertaking. Don`t laugh, maybe someday we will all have little nuclear reactors in our backyards, and instead of going to get some more wood for the fireplace, you’ll have to run to Wal-Mart to get a bag of uranium.
Nuclear power plants, as we know them, fired up in 1959. That was when the first privately funded nuclear energy plant came on-line, in Illinois. Fast-forward, and by the 1970s that number had exploded (pardon the pun) to 250 nuclear reactors that were planned across the United States - but the dream train of cheap, easy energy derailed a bit.
The disaster in Pennsylvania changed all that. I was just a kid, but I remember that accident. Three Mile Island was a nightmare. My wife Katrin was just a kid when Chernobyl happened. She lived in nearby Estonia. They had to stay inside for days, she told me.
Anyway, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident came close to Armageddon in 1979. Remember that movie? The China Syndrome? In the movie, Jack Lemmon works in a nuclear power plant that is going to have a meltdown. This movie is the kind of hysteria that made the public fear nuclear energy, and basically put the brakes on new construction. People didn`t want it near their homes, and I can`t say I blame them.
Public ignorance and fear of nuclear power changed the course of nuclear energy, as we’ve known, it for a very long time. Starting in the 1980s, utilities were canceling plants hand over fist. This resulted in the almost complete collapse of the uranium market.
And then, to beat down the market even further, uranium got hit square in the jaw. This second blow came when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. Enriched uranium that was removed from Russian bombs was blended down to reactor-grade fuel and put on the market. But, it gets worse.
The third punch came when the Clinton administration dumped 55 million pounds of "yellowcake" (uranium in the form of a yellowish powder) on the market, via a government-owned uranium enrichment program. This was what really caused the freefall for uranium prices - until now.
American uranium production peaked in 1980 at 43.7 million pounds, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That was the proverbial nail in the coffin for the exploration of uranium. New research and development ground to a halt, as mines could no longer afford to operate, and exploration was basically a waste of time, energy and money. According to Uraniumletter International, Wyoming once had eight uranium operations, which produced 12 million pounds per year. Today, things are different - a lot different. Wyoming now has none. Ouch!
I could go through each state and many countries around the world and cite examples just like that from reports I have read. It seems clear that because of these widespread shutdowns, the once-overflowing uranium supply dwindled in just five to 10 years.
Things didn`t seem so bad during the 1990s; the lack of new supply from functioning mines has been supported by other sources. There were excess inventories, for example, and there was also the dismantling and recycling of nuclear weapons, especially from Russia. Also, reprocessed reactor fuel was added to the mix.
But many of those quick fixes are no longer available.
The president`s State of the Union address was a rallying cry to uranium producers to get moving...finally, reality is setting in. The dwindling supply of oil and spiraling high prices of fossil fuels are driving interest in nuclear energy as the possible power source that will be used to meet current and future global demand.
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, unless you lived there, of course, are distant memories to most Europeans and Americans. On their minds are the prices at the pumps and their home heating bills.
Bottom line: New supplies of uranium will come at a much higher cost, which in turn, will continue to put upward pressure on the future price of uranium.
Regards,
Kevin Kerr
for The Daily Reckoning
by Kevin Kerr
The Uranium market is one that is like a wild roller coaster, and many of the equities associated with it can make investors queasy from the ride. These equities are no different from many mining stocks; they have to be looked at very closely. Uranium trading was starting to become more stable, or so it seemed. Then, just as fast as it calmed down - bam! - it went right back up. In two the uranium price surged $5 to $29 in just two weeks last year.
After the market woke up and new buying came in, the ultra-precious metal`s price climbed another $4, which set the highest uranium price since the early 1980s. The new speculation was triggered by growing expectations that China, India and Russia were planning to build new reactors and more reactors would cause a run on the limited supply of uranium. This speculation may well be right, if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stats are even close to true.
According to a report by the IAEA, 130 new nuclear power plants may be built in the next 15 years. Who are the big players? The usual suspects, of course: China, India, Europe, Russia, etc. Nuclear power provides about 16% of the planet`s total annual electricity generation and 34% of the European Union`s needs. Trust me, they need it - a lot. When my wife Katrin and I were in Estonia recently, it was frigid cold. Likewise, people are freezing to death in Moscow, right now. Nuclear power is a key component to economic survival in both Eastern Europe and the European Union.
I couldn`t believe some of the stats for other countries that I found in a great nuclear energy report called Uraniumletter International:
"China: Announced that it plans to build up to 40 nuclear reactors within the next 15 years. Some experts feel this will increase the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power from 2.4% to 4%.
"India: Also getting aggressive and wants to increase mining of uranium ore at four mines, including the existing Jaduguda mine in Jharkhand. The country recently signed a nuclear energy agreement with the United States and could generate 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power in the next 10 years, compared with current production of 3,120 megawatts.
"France: Receives 78% of its electricity from nuclear power.
"Belgium: Gets almost 56% of its power from nuclear plants.
"Sweden: Close to 50% of Sweden`s power is nuclear.
"Switzerland, Japan and the United States: Nuclear power provides 40%, 25% and 20%, respectively.
"Korea: Currently uses about 40%, operating on 19 nuclear reactors, and is expected to increase its dependence on nuclear power up to 60% in three decades.
"Asia: Nuclear energy is becoming more and more vital to the growing economies. Without it, Asia`s bazillion factories would come to a grinding halt."
I’m not a historical scholar by any stretch, but I am a big history buff and the he history of atomic energy fascinates me. In the 1940s, the U.S. government began buying large amounts of uranium in the effort to produce the world`s first atomic bomb.
I mean, a country didn`t simply go down to Wal-Mart in those days and buy some. So, it was a major undertaking. Don`t laugh, maybe someday we will all have little nuclear reactors in our backyards, and instead of going to get some more wood for the fireplace, you’ll have to run to Wal-Mart to get a bag of uranium.
Nuclear power plants, as we know them, fired up in 1959. That was when the first privately funded nuclear energy plant came on-line, in Illinois. Fast-forward, and by the 1970s that number had exploded (pardon the pun) to 250 nuclear reactors that were planned across the United States - but the dream train of cheap, easy energy derailed a bit.
The disaster in Pennsylvania changed all that. I was just a kid, but I remember that accident. Three Mile Island was a nightmare. My wife Katrin was just a kid when Chernobyl happened. She lived in nearby Estonia. They had to stay inside for days, she told me.
Anyway, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident came close to Armageddon in 1979. Remember that movie? The China Syndrome? In the movie, Jack Lemmon works in a nuclear power plant that is going to have a meltdown. This movie is the kind of hysteria that made the public fear nuclear energy, and basically put the brakes on new construction. People didn`t want it near their homes, and I can`t say I blame them.
Public ignorance and fear of nuclear power changed the course of nuclear energy, as we’ve known, it for a very long time. Starting in the 1980s, utilities were canceling plants hand over fist. This resulted in the almost complete collapse of the uranium market.
And then, to beat down the market even further, uranium got hit square in the jaw. This second blow came when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. Enriched uranium that was removed from Russian bombs was blended down to reactor-grade fuel and put on the market. But, it gets worse.
The third punch came when the Clinton administration dumped 55 million pounds of "yellowcake" (uranium in the form of a yellowish powder) on the market, via a government-owned uranium enrichment program. This was what really caused the freefall for uranium prices - until now.
American uranium production peaked in 1980 at 43.7 million pounds, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That was the proverbial nail in the coffin for the exploration of uranium. New research and development ground to a halt, as mines could no longer afford to operate, and exploration was basically a waste of time, energy and money. According to Uraniumletter International, Wyoming once had eight uranium operations, which produced 12 million pounds per year. Today, things are different - a lot different. Wyoming now has none. Ouch!
I could go through each state and many countries around the world and cite examples just like that from reports I have read. It seems clear that because of these widespread shutdowns, the once-overflowing uranium supply dwindled in just five to 10 years.
Things didn`t seem so bad during the 1990s; the lack of new supply from functioning mines has been supported by other sources. There were excess inventories, for example, and there was also the dismantling and recycling of nuclear weapons, especially from Russia. Also, reprocessed reactor fuel was added to the mix.
But many of those quick fixes are no longer available.
The president`s State of the Union address was a rallying cry to uranium producers to get moving...finally, reality is setting in. The dwindling supply of oil and spiraling high prices of fossil fuels are driving interest in nuclear energy as the possible power source that will be used to meet current and future global demand.
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, unless you lived there, of course, are distant memories to most Europeans and Americans. On their minds are the prices at the pumps and their home heating bills.
Bottom line: New supplies of uranium will come at a much higher cost, which in turn, will continue to put upward pressure on the future price of uranium.
Regards,
Kevin Kerr
for The Daily Reckoning
Why the uranium price is set to soar
09.03.2006
Bookmark page
Send to a friend
The uranium market is one that is like a wild roller coaster, and many of the equities associated with it can make investors queasy from the ride. These equities are no different from many mining stocks; they have to be looked at very closely. Uranium trading was starting to become more stable, or so it seemed. Then, just as fast as it calmed down - bam! - it went right back up. The uranium price surged $5 to $29 in just two weeks last year.
This genius investor does dizzying levels of research to uncover "HALF PRICE SHARES!"
FREE! MoneyWeek`s daily investment email.
Best of the Day Article
Five investment myths you should ignore
There are several ‘rules’ about trading that are so well accepted in the market that they are never questioned, says Paul Hill, MoneyWeek`s new investment expert (see above). But most of them are nonsense....
After the market woke up and new buying came in, the ultra-precious metal`s price climbed another $4, which set the highest uranium price since the early 1980s. The new speculation was triggered by growing expectations that China, India and Russia were planning to build new reactors and more reactors would cause a run on the limited supply of uranium. This speculation may well be right, if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stats are even close to true.
According to a report by the IAEA, 130 new nuclear power plants may be built in the next 15 years. Who are the big players? The usual suspects, of course: China, India, Europe, Russia, etc. Nuclear power provides about 16% of the planet`s total annual electricity generation and 34% of the European Union`s needs.
Trust me, they need it - a lot. When my wife Katrin and I were in Estonia recently, it was frigid cold. Likewise, people are freezing to death in Moscow, right now. Nuclear power is a key component to economic survival in both Eastern Europe and the European Union.
I couldn`t believe some of the stats for other countries that I found in a great nuclear energy report called Uraniumletter International:
“China: Announced that it plans to build up to 40 nuclear reactors within the next 15 years. Some experts feel this will increase the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power from 2.4% to 4%.
“India: Also getting aggressive and wants to increase mining of uranium ore at four mines, including the existing Jaduguda mine in Jharkhand. The country recently signed a nuclear energy agreement with the United States and could generate 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power in the next 10 years, compared with current production of 3,120 megawatts.
“France: Receives 78% of its electricity from nuclear power.
“Belgium: Gets almost 56% of its power from nuclear plants.
“Sweden: Close to 50% of Sweden`s power is nuclear.
“Switzerland, Japan and the United States: Nuclear power provides 40%, 25% and 20%, respectively.
“Korea: Currently uses about 40%, operating on 19 nuclear reactors, and is expected to increase its dependence on nuclear power up to 60% in three decades.
“Asia: Nuclear energy is becoming more and more vital to the growing economies. Without it, Asia`s bazillion factories would come to a grinding halt.”
I’m not a historical scholar by any stretch, but I am a big history buff and the history of atomic energy fascinates me. In the 1940s, the US government began buying large amounts of uranium in the effort to produce the world`s first atomic bomb.
I mean, a country didn`t simply go down to Wal-Mart in those days and buy some. So, it was a major undertaking. Don`t laugh, maybe someday we will all have little nuclear reactors in our backyards, and instead of going to get some more wood for the fireplace, you’ll have to run to Wal-Mart to get a bag of uranium.
Nuclear power plants, as we know them, fired up in 1959. That was when the first privately funded nuclear energy plant came on-line, in Illinois. Fast-forward, and by the 1970s that number had exploded (pardon the pun) to 250 nuclear reactors that were planned across the United States - but the dream train of cheap, easy energy derailed a bit.
(Article continues below)
Advertisement
The disaster in Pennsylvania changed all that. I was just a kid, but I remember that accident. Three Mile Island was a nightmare. My wife Katrin was just a kid when Chernobyl happened. She lived in nearby Estonia. They had to stay inside for days, she told me.
Anyway, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident came close to Armageddon in 1979. Remember that movie? The China Syndrome? In the movie, Jack Lemmon works in a nuclear power plant that is going to have a meltdown. This movie is the kind of hysteria that made the public fear nuclear energy, and basically put the brakes on new construction. People didn`t want it near their homes, and I can`t say I blame them.
Public ignorance and fear of nuclear power changed the course of nuclear energy, as we’ve known, it for a very long time. Starting in the 1980s, utilities were cancelling plants hand over fist. This resulted in the almost complete collapse of the uranium market.
And then, to beat down the market even further, uranium got hit square in the jaw. This second blow came when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. Enriched uranium that was removed from Russian bombs was blended down to reactor-grade fuel and put on the market. But, it gets worse.
The third punch came when the Clinton administration dumped 55 million pounds of "yellowcake" (uranium in the form of a yellowish powder) on the market, via a government-owned uranium enrichment program. This was what really caused the freefall for uranium prices - until now.
American uranium production peaked in 1980 at 43.7 million pounds, according to the US Energy Information Administration. That was the proverbial nail in the coffin for the exploration of uranium. New research and development ground to a halt, as mines could no longer afford to operate, and exploration was basically a waste of time, energy and money. According to Uraniumletter International, Wyoming once had eight uranium operations, which produced 12 million pounds per year.
Today, things are different - a lot different. Wyoming now has none. Ouch!
I could go through each state and many countries around the world and cite examples just like that from reports I have read. It seems clear that because of these widespread shutdowns, the once-overflowing uranium supply dwindled in just five to 10 years.
Things didn`t seem so bad during the 1990s; the lack of new supply from functioning mines has been supported by other sources. There were excess inventories, for example, and there was also the dismantling and recycling of nuclear weapons, especially from Russia. Also, reprocessed reactor fuel was added to the mix.
But many of those quick fixes are no longer available.
The president`s State of the Union address was a rallying cry to uranium producers to get moving...finally, reality is setting in. The dwindling supply of oil and spiralling high prices of fossil fuels are driving interest in nuclear energy as the possible power source that will be used to meet current and future global demand.
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, unless you lived there, of course, are distant memories to most Europeans and Americans. On their minds are the prices at the pumps and their home heating bills.
Bottom line: New supplies of uranium will come at a much higher cost, which in turn, will continue to put upward pressure on the future price of uranium.
09.03.2006
Bookmark page
Send to a friend
The uranium market is one that is like a wild roller coaster, and many of the equities associated with it can make investors queasy from the ride. These equities are no different from many mining stocks; they have to be looked at very closely. Uranium trading was starting to become more stable, or so it seemed. Then, just as fast as it calmed down - bam! - it went right back up. The uranium price surged $5 to $29 in just two weeks last year.
This genius investor does dizzying levels of research to uncover "HALF PRICE SHARES!"
FREE! MoneyWeek`s daily investment email.
Best of the Day Article
Five investment myths you should ignore
There are several ‘rules’ about trading that are so well accepted in the market that they are never questioned, says Paul Hill, MoneyWeek`s new investment expert (see above). But most of them are nonsense....
After the market woke up and new buying came in, the ultra-precious metal`s price climbed another $4, which set the highest uranium price since the early 1980s. The new speculation was triggered by growing expectations that China, India and Russia were planning to build new reactors and more reactors would cause a run on the limited supply of uranium. This speculation may well be right, if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stats are even close to true.
According to a report by the IAEA, 130 new nuclear power plants may be built in the next 15 years. Who are the big players? The usual suspects, of course: China, India, Europe, Russia, etc. Nuclear power provides about 16% of the planet`s total annual electricity generation and 34% of the European Union`s needs.
Trust me, they need it - a lot. When my wife Katrin and I were in Estonia recently, it was frigid cold. Likewise, people are freezing to death in Moscow, right now. Nuclear power is a key component to economic survival in both Eastern Europe and the European Union.
I couldn`t believe some of the stats for other countries that I found in a great nuclear energy report called Uraniumletter International:
“China: Announced that it plans to build up to 40 nuclear reactors within the next 15 years. Some experts feel this will increase the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power from 2.4% to 4%.
“India: Also getting aggressive and wants to increase mining of uranium ore at four mines, including the existing Jaduguda mine in Jharkhand. The country recently signed a nuclear energy agreement with the United States and could generate 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power in the next 10 years, compared with current production of 3,120 megawatts.
“France: Receives 78% of its electricity from nuclear power.
“Belgium: Gets almost 56% of its power from nuclear plants.
“Sweden: Close to 50% of Sweden`s power is nuclear.
“Switzerland, Japan and the United States: Nuclear power provides 40%, 25% and 20%, respectively.
“Korea: Currently uses about 40%, operating on 19 nuclear reactors, and is expected to increase its dependence on nuclear power up to 60% in three decades.
“Asia: Nuclear energy is becoming more and more vital to the growing economies. Without it, Asia`s bazillion factories would come to a grinding halt.”
I’m not a historical scholar by any stretch, but I am a big history buff and the history of atomic energy fascinates me. In the 1940s, the US government began buying large amounts of uranium in the effort to produce the world`s first atomic bomb.
I mean, a country didn`t simply go down to Wal-Mart in those days and buy some. So, it was a major undertaking. Don`t laugh, maybe someday we will all have little nuclear reactors in our backyards, and instead of going to get some more wood for the fireplace, you’ll have to run to Wal-Mart to get a bag of uranium.
Nuclear power plants, as we know them, fired up in 1959. That was when the first privately funded nuclear energy plant came on-line, in Illinois. Fast-forward, and by the 1970s that number had exploded (pardon the pun) to 250 nuclear reactors that were planned across the United States - but the dream train of cheap, easy energy derailed a bit.
(Article continues below)
Advertisement
The disaster in Pennsylvania changed all that. I was just a kid, but I remember that accident. Three Mile Island was a nightmare. My wife Katrin was just a kid when Chernobyl happened. She lived in nearby Estonia. They had to stay inside for days, she told me.
Anyway, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident came close to Armageddon in 1979. Remember that movie? The China Syndrome? In the movie, Jack Lemmon works in a nuclear power plant that is going to have a meltdown. This movie is the kind of hysteria that made the public fear nuclear energy, and basically put the brakes on new construction. People didn`t want it near their homes, and I can`t say I blame them.
Public ignorance and fear of nuclear power changed the course of nuclear energy, as we’ve known, it for a very long time. Starting in the 1980s, utilities were cancelling plants hand over fist. This resulted in the almost complete collapse of the uranium market.
And then, to beat down the market even further, uranium got hit square in the jaw. This second blow came when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. Enriched uranium that was removed from Russian bombs was blended down to reactor-grade fuel and put on the market. But, it gets worse.
The third punch came when the Clinton administration dumped 55 million pounds of "yellowcake" (uranium in the form of a yellowish powder) on the market, via a government-owned uranium enrichment program. This was what really caused the freefall for uranium prices - until now.
American uranium production peaked in 1980 at 43.7 million pounds, according to the US Energy Information Administration. That was the proverbial nail in the coffin for the exploration of uranium. New research and development ground to a halt, as mines could no longer afford to operate, and exploration was basically a waste of time, energy and money. According to Uraniumletter International, Wyoming once had eight uranium operations, which produced 12 million pounds per year.
Today, things are different - a lot different. Wyoming now has none. Ouch!
I could go through each state and many countries around the world and cite examples just like that from reports I have read. It seems clear that because of these widespread shutdowns, the once-overflowing uranium supply dwindled in just five to 10 years.
Things didn`t seem so bad during the 1990s; the lack of new supply from functioning mines has been supported by other sources. There were excess inventories, for example, and there was also the dismantling and recycling of nuclear weapons, especially from Russia. Also, reprocessed reactor fuel was added to the mix.
But many of those quick fixes are no longer available.
The president`s State of the Union address was a rallying cry to uranium producers to get moving...finally, reality is setting in. The dwindling supply of oil and spiralling high prices of fossil fuels are driving interest in nuclear energy as the possible power source that will be used to meet current and future global demand.
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, unless you lived there, of course, are distant memories to most Europeans and Americans. On their minds are the prices at the pumps and their home heating bills.
Bottom line: New supplies of uranium will come at a much higher cost, which in turn, will continue to put upward pressure on the future price of uranium.
wkn ?
DurchsuchenBeitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Zu dieser Diskussion können keine Beiträge mehr verfasst werden, da der letzte Beitrag vor mehr als zwei Jahren verfasst wurde und die Diskussion daraufhin archiviert wurde.
Bitte wenden Sie sich an feedback@wallstreet-online.de und erfragen Sie die Reaktivierung der Diskussion oder starten Sie eine neue Diskussion.
Investoren beobachten auch:
| Wertpapier | Perf. % |
|---|---|
| +0,79 | |
| 0,00 | |
| +3,29 | |
| +6,67 | |
| +1,81 | |
| +2,11 | |
| -0,84 | |
| +2,40 | |
| +9,47 | |
| -5,86 |
Meistdiskutiert
| Wertpapier | Beiträge | |
|---|---|---|
| 102 | ||
| 60 | ||
| 55 | ||
| 53 | ||
| 44 | ||
| 40 | ||
| 38 | ||
| 31 | ||
| 29 | ||
| 28 |
