# Uranium rallying



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There's been a pretty sharp increase in the uranium stocks. Any thoughts on uranium?

Cameco











NexGen


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Nuclear energy isn't cool yet.
I don't think the world is ready yet. But lots of young people are watching info on Chernobyl and youtubers visiting the site, going into the reactor, and things.
I think the younger generation will be less afraid of nuclear, it just matters if the renewable/battery technology can keep up. Who knows what the future holds.
But when the new generation of voters, who don't have an irrational fear of nuclear, get frustrated with the cost of renewables, when safer nuclear options exist It could change.
This change is at least 20-30 years out, so how patient are you?


Also it looks like uranium is on a medium term downward trend. I'd assume most nuclear producers have long running supply contracts, they're not buying it off the spot market.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

james4beach said:


> There's been a pretty sharp increase in the uranium stocks. Any thoughts on uranium?


That sharp increase ticked up when Sprott launched its Physical Uranium Trust. CCO has been a long term hold for me and I added this fund.

Sprotts buys/stores uranium with Cameco, ConverDyn, Orano, and Urenco. If we want to go clean energy and still increase the population, nuclear power is the only realistic solution I see.

Nuclear power is more efficient, reliable, clean and safe. Otherwise we will need it to blow each other up


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Nuclear power is more efficient, reliable, clean and safe. Otherwise we will need it to blow each other up


Yeah, we just need the current slew of 20 somethings to grow up and get a reality check to realize this.
That's why I think we're a few decades out.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

m3s said:


> Nuclear power is more efficient, reliable, clean and safe.


I agree but Germany and many European countries disagree


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Yeah, we just need the current slew of 20 somethings to grow up and get a reality check to realize this.
> That's why I think we're a few decades out.


There are serious concerns with nuclear waste disposal. Look at the mess that has resulted in several countries, including the US, despite the huge US budget for handling nuclear waste.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> There are serious concerns with nuclear waste disposal. Look at the mess that has resulted in several countries, including the US, despite the huge US budget for handling nuclear waste.


There are serious concerns with pollution from Green Energy, look at the mess that has resulted in several countries.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> There are serious concerns with pollution from Green Energy, look at the mess that has resulted in several countries.


Just imagine how many wind turbine/blades and solar panels you have to manufacture and dispose of to create the equivalent amount of power. Imagine how many resources you have to mine to create the equivalent amount of power as nuclear

People don't look at the entire life cycle


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Just imagine how many wind turbine/blades and solar panels you have to manufacture and dispose of to create the equivalent amount of power. Imagine how many resources you have to mine to create the equivalent amount of power as nuclear
> 
> People don't look at the entire life cycle


That's because the modern "Green" movement is a religion.
At least they're starting to look at Methane a bit, and not just CO2.

Oh and the Greens are going to come for your steak..


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

^while bad, I believe that concentrated solid or liquid waste (like spent fuel or old blades) is a far better problem to have than distributed pollution (GHG). So in that case, solar, wind, and nuclear are all good options.
Nuclear's problem is the huge upfront cost and usually extremely long timeline to be operational. At least is has been in the past.
Wind turbines being built now are fully recyclable.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

nobleea said:


> ^while bad, I believe that concentrated solid or liquid waste (like spent fuel or old blades) is a far better problem to have than distributed pollution (GHG). So in that case, solar, wind, and nuclear are all good options.
> Nuclear's problem is the huge upfront cost and usually extremely long timeline to be operational. At least is has been in the past.
> Wind turbines being built now are fully recyclable.


yeah, you try to get a landfill approved.
Please support your claim that wind turbines are fully recyclable. Most I know of have composite blades, and composites like carbon fiber aren't easily recyclable.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> yeah, you try to get a landfill approved.
> Please support your claim that wind turbines are fully recyclable. Most I know of have composite blades, and composites like carbon fiber aren't easily recyclable.


Meh, if that's the only option, then a landfill (for nuclear or blades or whatever) is a pretty small political price to pay to maintain voters standard of living. They'll force it through.

You're right, I just checked and the self-imposed target is 100% recyclable by 2025.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

nobleea said:


> Meh, if that's the only option, then a landfill (for nuclear or blades or whatever) is a pretty small political price to pay to maintain voters standard of living. They'll force it through.
> 
> You're right, I just checked and the self-imposed target is 100% recyclable by 2025.


Self Imposed, I'll believe it when I see it.

If you have a choice between a recyclable windmill, and a cheaper one that generates more power which isn't, you'll go for the cheaper one.
Unless you have governments choosing to overpay for electricity to get the recyclable one.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> That's because the modern "Green" movement is a religion.
> At least they're starting to look at Methane a bit, and not just CO2.
> 
> Oh and the Greens are going to come for your steak..


It isn't a religion. It is massive business. Detrimental to environment as compared to alternatives, but great for the pocketbooks. All directly from taxpayers


----------



## pacman (Sep 6, 2009)

james4beach said:


> There's been a pretty sharp increase in the uranium stocks. Any thoughts on uranium?


This is a simple supply & demand story. The gap between the supply and the demand to power the current nuclear power plants for the next 10+ years will grow over this period. The price of uranium has to go up, as the current spot is still (even with the recent run-up) less that the cost to mine the yellow stuff. This is a very good risk/reward investment for me and I have a significant % of my portfolio in U stocks.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

james4beach said:


> There are serious concerns with nuclear waste disposal. Look at the mess that has resulted in several countries, including the US, despite the huge US budget for handling nuclear waste.


There are serious concerns with energy shortages, already happening in Europe. Power spot prices are spiking 10x as they shut down nuclear plants. Germany is now burning more coal than any other source, and that is not counting 70% of their total power is imported from countries like Bulgaria and Croatia who run massive coal plants with zero environmental regulations.

Which is worse, nuclear waste, or massive unregulated coal emissions? Because those are the choices and when the wind stops blowing across an entire continent, it only makes the situation worse.


----------

