THORIUM POWER heißt nach dem split jetzt LIGHTBRIDGE (LTBG) (Seite 44)

[Popeye82]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 57.194.722 von Popeye82 am 06.03.18 05:48:49

jeder der an LTBR interessiert oder invoviert ist sollte sich Diesen article gut durchlesen, und den zeitplan verGEGENwärtigen.
wer Dies nicht tut, Dem ist m.E. nicht zu helfen.

[Popeye82]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 56.922.296 von Popeye82 am 03.02.18 15:02:09

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/UF-Framatome-ideal-partner…
" Framatome 'ideal partner', says Lightbridge CEO

05 February 2018

Framatome is the best partner for Lightbridge for developing, licensing and commercialising nuclear fuel assemblies based on its technology, the company's president and CEO Seth Grae told World Nuclear News. Speaking shortly after the companies announced their Enfission joint venture, he said they intend Enfission to become a major player in the international nuclear industry.

The Enfission joint venture was launched on 25 January following the signing last September of a binding agreement between Areva and Lightbridge. Framatome was formed recently from the spin-off of Areva Group's nuclear reactor operations and is owned by the EDF Group (75.5%), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (19.5%) and Assystem (5%).

"In many ways I view Framatome as the ideal partner," Grae said last week. "We did speak with all of their competitors. We did decide that the company now called Framatome was our first choice to be our partner and we were very happy that initially everything progressed well enough that it was clear that they could be, and we went forward only with them.

"Some of their competitors were definitely willing to go forward, but it's more in Framatome's DNA that they're entrepreneurial, that they like new technology," Grae said. "They started as a licensee of technology. They've always been open both to developing their own technology and taking technology from others, partnering with others, and enhancing it."

Intellectual property

Lightbridge announced last week it has been awarded key patents in both Europe and China related to its metallic fuel design. The patents - valid until 2034 - follow notices of allowances that were issued last year by the European Patent Office and China's State Intellectual Property Office.

The patents cover an alternative embodiment of a multi-lobe fuel rod design; an all-metal pressurised water reactor (PWR) fuel assembly design incorporating multi-lobe fuel rods based in the alternative embodiment; and an all-metal PWR fuel assembly design incorporating multi-lobe fuel rods arranged into a mixed grid pattern; thereby covering the all-metal fuel assembly design after the most recent optimisation.

In addition, Lightbridge has received a notice of allowance in China related to the manufacturing process for its fuel rods and covers a co-extrusion manufacturing method for the multi-lobe metallic fuel rods via the casting route.

Grae said, "These latest patents are a critical step in solidifying our intellectual protection around the world as we gear up for commercialisation through Enfission."

Referring to Areva's work with Belgium's Belgonucleaire to develop the MIMAS process for fabricating mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, Grae said: "That's a very good model for what we are doing and Framatome really is the only company in the world that has done something like that. Everyone else has only ever used the same uranium dioxide fuel - with slight tweaks - as existed at the beginning of the industry."

He said Enfission will complete the commercial design of the Lightbridge fuel.

"Framatome brings massive capacity to that effort that Lightbridge does not have in terms of decades of intellectual property development and operating experience on the chemistry of fuel and reactors."

Lightbridge's fuel is made from a zirconium-uranium alloy and uses a unique composition and fuel rod geometry, which the company says offers improvements to the economics, efficiency and safety of existing and new nuclear power plants.

The first lead test rod of the Lightbridge fuel is expected to be loaded into a US reactor around 2021, Grae said.

"We believe we know which reactor that is," he noted. Enfission anticipates having a letter of intent for lead test assemblies by 2023, with the loading of a partial or full core of assemblies by 2026.

Grae said that under the joint venture agreement, manufacturing will initially be contracted by Lightbridge to Framatome in the USA, but Enfission will sell the fuel.

"Initially there would be a pilot-scale fuel fabrication facility - most likely co-located with existing Framatome facilities in the US - and then a commercial-scale fuel fabrication facility could be an expansion of that initial line or it could be greenfield, it could be something new," he said. "Most likely it will be an existing Framatome site in Washington State but that decision is not made yet.

Lightbridge plans to conduct full irradiation testing of fabricated fuel samples under commercial reactor operating conditions in a pressurised water loop at the Halden reactor in Norway. However, it is also considering doing some irradiation testing at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in the USA. The Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) at INL was restarted in November after being offline for 23 years.

"All of a sudden the USA can do transient testing at the TREAT reactor - in effect severe accident testing, where you can mimic Fukushima-, Chernobyl- or Three Mile Island-type conditions and see how the fuel does," Grae said. "We very much want to do that."

"We believe our fuel will come through with flying colours and we have reasons we believe that. Very strong reasons," he said. "So we are very serious about testing it under those conditions."

Grae is confident that a market exists for its fuel design.

"Having a product that significantly improves the economics and safety of existing or new build reactors is something utilities are very interested in," he said. "If there are some more entrepreneurial American utilities that are willing to be first and demonstrate this in their plants, then it's a lot easier to enter those markets."

However, he acknowledged there are some markets the company simply cannot reach at the current time because, "for their own reasons", they might not base such decisions on purely commercial considerations.

"I think in the end we will reach them, either through exporting and building new production facilities in some countries, and eventually perhaps licensing to, or partnering with, entities in other countries."

Lightbridge fuel has significant safety advantages, particularly in design basis loss-of-coolant accidents, Grae said. On its economic benefits, he said: "In the cost per unit of electricity generated, this is a significantly lower-cost fuel. If you look at just the cost of buying the fuel itself, itcosts more because there is more uranium enrichment in the fuel, and uranium enrichment cost money. So, in a sense, per fuel rod you pay more but the fuel rods last longer and every day they are in the reactor they generate more electricity. It's a significant economic benefit that this fuel brings to [utilities'] reactors, UNLIKE ANYTHING THE INDUSTRY HAS EVER SEEN."

Researched and written
by World Nuclear News"

[Popeye82]

"Lightbridge metallic fuel to be featured in the April 2018 edition of Nuclear Engineering and Design

Lightbridge Corporation ("Lightbridge") has learned that its innovative nuclear fuel will be featured in the April 2018 edition of Nuclear Engineering and Design, an international journal devoted to all aspects of nuclear fission energy. The article, entitled "Proliferation resistant plutonium: An updated analysis," explores the proliferation resistance of Lightbridge's fuel. The authors performed an independent evaluation via computer simulation of Lightbridge's fuel design for a pressurized water reactor and came to the conclusion that the resultant plutonium would be useless in current nuclear weapon designs.

Investors are encouraged to read the article in its entirety, including important assumptions and limitations discussed therein. Lightbridge has not evaluated the methodology used by the authors or the claims or conclusions set forth in the article. Lightbridge expressly disclaims any responsibility for the contents of the article and expressly disclaims any duty to update any information contained in the article, except as required by law."

[Popeye82]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 57.173.778 von sir_krisowaritschko am 02.03.18 20:19:27

___________________________________________________________________





mal Klartext: Dieses ganze Gecharte ist doch nur dass Ihr euch SELBER aus der Verantwortung rausnehmt.

ich mache Mir Das nicht; ANSATZweise; so einfach.
bei Altech wurden Sie ja auf einmal ganz schön f************ckrig.
Wos auf Einmal nicht mehr nur um Bildchen einstellen ging.

[Popeye82]

https://atomicinsights.com/advanced-nuclear-energy-systems-r…
"Advanced nuclear energy systems are ready for investors who seek ground floor opportunities

February 27, 2018 By Rod Adams 11 Comments

Tweet
Share 0

Last week, the Nuclear Infrastructure Council hosted its 5th annual Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. The agenda was packed; information and ideas came rapidly enough to inspire significant post-event reflection. One question worth of significant additional discussion is “How do we match the ingenuity and enthusiasm of atomic innovators with the large magnitude financing sources needed to advance the field so it can become a major success story?”

Several of the Summit’s former primary participants have dropped out of the field or are realigning their efforts; financing became either a solid barrier or a hindering hurdle needing to be better addressed. Several new entrants made their debut. Stalwarts who have been a part of the summit for several years, including some who have been at every meeting so far, provided status updates with significant progress to report.

Though there are still no commercial reactors designed in the past 30 years operating in the United States, the field is maturing and ripe for investors willing to side-step conventional wisdom so that they can be in at the ground floor. In my opinion, the foundation and basement level investors have completed enough of their tasks to declare that the remainder of the structure is ready for construction.

There’s no doubt that many risks remain to be retired before investing in advanced nuclear systems is appropriate for widows, orphans or near term retirement funds. For those with a greater appetite for risk or who understand the importance of long term, patient investing, there are some impressive opportunities available. The identified, addressable markets are enormous while the universe of potential suppliers is rather compact.

Virtually all of the currently participating companies, however, are either small, not-yet-public start-ups only accessible to investors of a certain sophistication or wealth or they are very large companies with modest levels of involvement in advanced nuclear compared to their overall size.

That reality makes it difficult for people with modest resources but significant professional understanding of the opportunities to make strategic, long term, focused investments in the field.

During several of the breaks throughout the course of the event, I engaged in a thoughtful conversation with Dr. Warren (Pete) Miller, a former head of the Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy. Though neither of us are financial experts, we agreed that it is probably time for advanced nuclear energy advocates to attract the attention of people who specialize in aggregating small investors into large, focused funds.

Though the specific form of the fund(s) need a lot of creative development, there is an opportunity to put together investment vehicles similar to exchange traded funds (ETF) that specialize in identifying and investing in high potential nuclear energy developers. Such funds could spread the execution risk among several different projects and among several different phases of the supply chain. With careful communications, the fund managers can develop the kind of patient money needed for success in this field by making it abundantly clear to participants that they need to be willing to wait for 5-15 years before seeing strong results from selected investment targets.

Conventional wisdom assumes that kind of patient investor doesn’t exist anymore , but that wisdom is belied by the fact that parents and their children still cooperate in developing plans to invest in lengthy, costly college degree programs or such long-term investments as medical school. Major energy corporations still develop capital intensive projects that often need a decade or more of ever-increasing expenditures before they begin to generate any revenue at all.

Successful people, including nuclear professionals, still make long term investments ( ) , save for retirement, and enter into financial agreements that might last for thirty years or more.

Of course, many sources agree that the “puck” in the energy investing world is currently heading towards an ever increasing penetration for natural gas and its renewable energy partners. People who believe that straight line trajectory will continue without deflection are all skating in a certain direction, sure that they are following The Great One’s advice to move to where the puck is going to be.

It takes confident, informed and observant participants to see that there are discontinuities in the ice and numerous opportunities for other players to change the puck’s current trajectory. It is always possible that the crowd is absolutely correct in its prediction of the future location of beneficial investing in energy. Time will tell, but by the time it does, the crowd may have seriously misjudged the best place to make strategic investments.

Smart investors looking to separate their strategy and seek less crowded, potentially more lucrative targets would be well advised to learn more about the scale and breadth of the new (or renewed) ideas in nuclear energy.

In the very near future, I will add more specifics about the opportunities revealed during the Advance Reactor Technical Summit. In the meantime, I’d be interested in hearing from anyone with thoughts about developing mechanisms for investors with moderate resources and long time horizons to focus part of their portfolio in this potentially high payoff field."

[Popeye82]

REDfaced liars
https://atomicinsights.com/deep-state-actors-omb-turn-doe-le…

"Deep state actors at OMB turn DOE leaders into red-faced liars. Cannot revive, revitalize and expand nuclear energy with 25% less money

February 28, 2018 By Rod Adams 10 Comments

Tweet
Share 5

Mark Menezes, the Undersecretary of Energy at the Department of Energy, gave an optimistic, forward-looking, audience-flattering, stage-setting talk at the Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. At least five times during his 10-minute talk, he repeated various combinations of a phrase – “revive, revitalize and expand” – that is apparently the mantra that the Administration has chosen to describe actions it will take in the nuclear sector.

He told us that the full Administration “from President Trump to Secretary Perry, to the Energy Department staff are all committed to building a brighter future for nuclear energy.” He stroked the egos of audience members, pointing out their ingenuity, tenacity and intellectual brilliance.

He even made the following statement, which was obviously well-received by the assembled audience.

“Going forward, we must strive to revive, revitalize and expand our nuclear capacity. That was reflected in the Energy Department’s budget that we proposed last week. In it, we called for a significant increase in funding for nuclear energy, including funding for early stage R&D for advanced nuclear energy technologies, for more R&D and strategic investments in infrastructure and for the development of small modular reactors, also known as SMRs.”
(Emphasis added.)

Most of the audience would have had to feel terrific after that rousing introductory speech. They had traveled to College Station, Texas to talk about progress they had made, support they had attracted, and, perhaps more importantly, the obstacles remaining between them and commercial deployment of their high potential technologies. Hearing that the Administration was fully behind them, ready to make enabling investments, and committed to helping to clear the path to their objective made them sit a little straighter and smile a little brighter.

Those of us who pay close attention to wonky topics like the planning, programming and budgeting cycle, however, were more likely to be squirming in our seats. We knew that the Undersecretary wasn’t telling the truth.

Undersecretary Menezes had the unfortunate timing of giving his talk on Wednesday, Feb 21, just 9 days after the President’s Budget had been publicly released. His staff must have been too busy with higher priority activities to tone down his speech to better match the numbers in the budget. In fact, they must have been so busy – perhaps fielding questions about the budget submission – that they did not have time to remove sections that were flat out contradictions.

By inaction, they allowed the Undersecretary to – perhaps unknowingly – lie about the direction of the nuclear energy budget. There was no “significant increase in funding for nuclear energy.” In contrast, the President’s DOE budget fact sheet contained the following summary statement.

“$757M for Nuclear Energy, $259M below FY 2017 Enacted, to revive and expand the U.S. nuclear energy sector through early-stage R&D, prioritizing support for advanced manufacturing methods, instrumentation, and reactor technologies, including $54M for advanced Small Modular Reactor R&D.”
(Emphasis added)

The published top level numbers (Nuclear Energy is on p. 42-43) provide the details that support the summary statement. The Integrated University Program, STEP R&D, and SMR licensing support have all been reduced to zero dollars for a total reduction of $105 M. Fuel cycle R&D, Radiological Facilities Management, Idaho Facilities Management, Program Direction, and International Nuclear Energy Cooperation all received substantial reductions, including a dramatic 71% reduction ($147.5 M) in Fuel Cycle R&D. The only line items with increases are Reactor Concepts R&D, Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (an almost invisible $900,000) and Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security.

In addition to describing a 25% budget reduction as a significant increase, Undersecretary Menezes piqued my questioning attitude by mentioning that the President had ordered a “a complete review of our nation’s nuclear energy policies in order to find new ways to revitalize it.”

Though there was no formal Q&A period after the Undersecretary’s talk, Menezes was available for individual questions during the morning break. He seemed genuinely surprised to hear that the nuclear energy budget had received a reduction of 25% and not the increase that he described during his talk. He then began to allude to the tight budgets and the fact that all areas had been cut. I interrupted with the fact that renewable energy tax credits are still costing the federal government something close to $5 billion per year. That’s 5 times the total nuclear energy budget before it was cut.

He acknowledged that Congress had decided to follow through on its commitment from previous years and that the President had signed the deal. He challenged the number I quoted and told me he was pretty sure it wasn’t anywhere close to that amount.

The complete review ordered by the President turned out to be a big hurdle during the budget battle. Apparently OMB career staffers felt that they needed to wait until the review was complete before they could align the budget request to provide resources for whatever programs the review identified. The fact that the review was specifically supposed to identify new ways to revitalize nuclear energy did not sway them into requesting more money, even as a “placeholder.”

More money cannot ensure success, but deep cuts in resources can virtually guarantee failure and loss of experienced experts.

Someone told me that Washington’s best kept secret is the fact that OMB is the final decision maker for Administration programs, not the Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed Cabinet Secretaries.

As my source concluded, “The so-called “deep state” is alive and well, goes by the name OMB, and resides at the Eisenhower and New Executive Office Buildings.”

That’s not a new discovery for someone who spent 9 years fighting budget battles inside the Beltway. The amount of power held by spreadsheet warriors is almost unfathomable, which is why it is beneficial to include experienced political professionals in any effort to make REAL change."

[Popeye82]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 57.168.132 von Popeye82 am 02.03.18 10:20:05

wirtschaftlich-technisch funktionieren Diese Reaktoren gar nicht sooo unähnlich Wie resource Projekte(IRR, Sowas, etc).
________________________________________________________________



Wer Dazu Etwas mehr wissen will liest Link Beitrag53.

[sir_krisowaritschko]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 57.173.292 von winni2 am 02.03.18 19:07:59

[winni2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 57.172.752 von Popeye82 am 02.03.18 17:48:29

...was ist los ? ...kauft Ihr grad alle ?... woher plötzlich das Volumen heute ,ganz ohne News ?

[Popeye82]

ach News ist die Masse heuzutage doch suechtig wie die Kiffer nach dem nächsten Joint
___________________________________________________________________



Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat????????


Ich persönlich bekomme oft bei den Tradern; Hauptsache (next) news, news, news, aber schnurzegal Was drinsteht( ); das Kotzen.
(gibt öfter Augenblicke Wo es dann schwierig ist sich zwischen Lachen ODER Weinen zu entscheiden)
Und dann beschweren sich div "Einsteins" im Gleichen Atemnzug dass ja "Alles so unseriös" geworden ist; stellen aber Gar Keine Verbindungen mehr zur in Fackreisen gennannt "Real" world her.
ANDERERseits: Des Einen Ver(w)irrung, Des Anderen Chance.