Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
All 4 of your Nukes having a good day, charts look good, breaking out, breaking a decaling resistance line, or new 52 week highs.
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=NLR&p=D&yr=1&mn=8&dy=0&id=p42842467199
Rickards - >>> History’s Starting to Rhyme…
BY JAMES RICKARDS
AUGUST 29, 2023
https://dailyreckoning.com/historys-starting-to-rhyme/
History’s Starting to Rhyme…
Has World War III already begun?
That’s not a facetious question meant to grab attention. It’s a legitimate question.
It’s often the case that momentous events begin in small ways and expand out of control. In retrospect, it seems obvious that war was inevitable. But at the time, it’s not obvious at all. Events might seem disconnected and it’s far from obvious that war is inevitable.
Historical hindsight is 20/20.
World War I was not called that at the time. It was called the Great War. It was only when World War II arrived that the name World War I was applied.
And how should we think about the beginning of World War II? Most historians date it from the German invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. Still, many Americans date the war from Dec. 7, 1941, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan.
But the Chinese can be forgiven for saying both dates are wrong. The Chinese look to the invasion of Manchuria by Japan on Sept. 18, 1931 as the real start of World War II.
A Matter of Perspective
The point is that both the start and finish of world wars and other major conflicts are not quite as cut and dried as historians would have it. It’s often a question of culture and perspective.
This brings us to the current state of the world. Has anyone raised a banner or made a declaration that World War III has begun? No. Is it often the case that there are brushfire and proxy wars going on in several parts of the world that don’t pose any clear danger of coalescing into a global conflagration?
The answer is yes.
The wars going on today are not all small and some are quite large. More importantly, they directly or indirectly involve great powers such as the U.S., China and Russia and important secondary powers, including nuclear powers such as France and Pakistan.
Moreover, the stakes are high including the future of NATO, control of Eastern Europe, control of Middle East oil and the global supply of uranium. More urgent than the current status of these conflicts is the likelihood of escalation leading to nuclear war with no reverse gear.
Let’s review these critical conflicts briefly. In doing so, keep in mind that we may be in a period such as the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) that presaged World War I, or the Japan-China wars (1931-1937) that presaged World War II.
The genii may already be out of the bottle.
Ukraine
Ukraine is the obvious place to begin. Russia is winning the war decisively. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was annihilated on June 6 and re-annihilated after a reboot of the offensive again in late July. Ukraine is now using light infantry tactics since their armor has been blown up by Russian mines and artillery and left burning on the battlefield.
The “wonder weapons” including Patriot missile batteries, HIMARS artillery, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Leopard tanks, Challenger tanks and Storm Shadow cruise missiles have all been destroyed by some combination of Russian hypersonic missiles, anti-aircraft defenses and artillery or mines, or have been disabled by GPS signal jamming and other forms of electronic warfare.
Ukrainian combat dead are estimated at over 200,000 and all for nothing.
Ukraine has no chance of winning the war, but the war may escalate anyway. Biden’s team does not want to admit a humiliating defeat. They do want to keep the war going until after the 2024 election to help Biden’s reelection chances. After that, Biden (if he wins) will ditch the Ukrainians just as he ditched the Afghanistan people in August 2021.
Keeping the war going means more aggressive acts in the Black Sea (possibly involving Romanian vessels; Romania is a NATO member), providing 155 mm cluster munitions (that mainly kill children when they don’t detonate as intended) and massing Polish troops (another NATO member) on the border of Belarus, which is in a treaty alliance with Russia. Poland has its own designs on western Ukraine as a revival of the Polish-Lithuanian federation that lasted from 1569-1795.
If Russia is pressed to sink a Romanian warship or if Poland moves into western Ukraine, you have a pretext for triggering Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which would lead more or less directly to World War III, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Biden doesn’t care about any of this and U.S. warmongers like Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland are cheering it on.
Side-by-side with the kinetic war in Ukraine are the financial sanctions imposed by the U.S. on Russia. Biden has threatened to keep these sanctions in place “as long as it takes,” which could mean years the way the conflict is proceeding.
These sanctions have had no impact on Russian behavior or the Russian economy, but they have badly damaged the EU and the status of the U.S. dollar as a trusted store of value. These economic costs for the West will grow with the passage of time.
The Fight for Uranium
Another conflict with escalatory potential involves the state of Niger, located in the Sahara desert. A recent military coup d’état overthrew the elected government several weeks ago (although the coup leaders contend the election was fraudulent). Some surveys show that the military junta enjoys broad popular support.
Niger is France’s largest supplier of uranium, while France is one of the largest builders of nuclear power plants in the world. France desperately needs to restore order in Niger, including forcing the junta to step aside and reinstate the elected government.
France has special forces including the French Foreign Legion ready to intervene. However, France does not want to proceed unilaterally, and is trying to recruit African allies to join the invasion.
The most significant regional grouping is the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which includes both Francophone states like Senegal and Côte D’Ivoire and important Anglophone states such as Nigeria. France is recruiting ECOWAS to participate in its invasion of Niger.
ECOWAS members are divided on the idea. In any case, ECOWAS action would require approval of the African Union and possibly the United Nations as well as weeks of mobilization. So no military action is likely for several months at the earliest.
There’s no evidence that Russia was involved in the Niger coup, but Russia certainly stands as a major beneficiary. Russia is the other large manufacturer of nuclear power plants in addition to France.
Russia gets its uranium from inside Russia, Kazakhstan and other Central Asian republics. (Russia also owns large amounts of U.S. uranium deposits obtained in a deal authorized by Hillary Clinton in exchange for huge donations to the Clinton Foundation).
If Russia can cut off France’s access to Nigérien uranium, it will tighten its hold on global uranium supplies and enhance its position as a provider of nuclear power plants.
There is some talk now (not confirmed) that Russia may offer support to the Nigérien coup, including possible deployment of the Wagner Group mercenary army. That would greatly complicate any plans for French or ECOWAS involvement.
Again, we would have the specter of Russia (via Wagner) and France (a NATO member) squaring off in a war for uranium in the Sahara desert. The escalatory potential is obvious.
By the way, the bloodthirsty Victoria Nuland visited Niger recently and was not warmly received. She departed the country empty-handed. No doubt she left some threats of U.S. support for the French behind.
A Presage To The Third World War?
There are many other hot zones around the world including Taiwan, the South China Sea, Syria, and North Korea. Pakistan is perhaps the most dangerous because there is a rising conflict between the elected Prime Minister Imran Khan (now in prison and removed from office) and his supporters on the one hand, and the military on the other.
Chaos in Pakistan is inherently threatening at a global level because it is a nuclear armed power in a continual standoff with the nuclear armed India.
Perhaps these conflicts will resolve themselves in the fullness of time. Perhaps not. For now, they are individually threatening (because of escalation) and bear an eerie resemblance to the confluence of conflicts that presaged the two greatest wars in history.
History may not repeat itself, but it sounds like it’s beginning to rhyme.
<<<
---
Whatever happened to your computer has nothing to do with the iHub boards I participate on.
>> Better safe than sorry <<
The computer problems coincided with the flak from I-Hub over too many 'OT political posts', so my assumption is that these events were related. It all happened after I posted numerous RFK and Tucker related posts. Clearly, censorship has come to social media, and the way this is being accomplished will presumably become more aggressive as the 'gloves come off'. First they kick people off YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, then they infect your computer if you visit dodgy sites or post info critical to the NWO. Once the CBDC is in place, they just switch off your access to money, as is done to 'dissidents' in China.
>>> “First of all, they came to take the gypsies
and I was happy because they pilfered.
Then they came to take the Jews and I said nothing,
because they were unpleasant to me.
Then they came to take homosexuals,
and I was relieved, because they were annoying me.
Then they came to take the Communists,
and I said nothing because I was not a Communist.
One day they came to take me,
and there was nobody left to protest.<<<
---
Better safe than sorry. I never had a problem there, but.....
I will post it and give you an h/t
>> post this Gates and Nukes article on Dew's board <<
I've been staying off Dew's boards because that's where my computer got zapped a few weeks ago. I clicked on Dew's name to see if he had any new posts, and pow, my computer went haywire and was cooked. It might have been a coincidence, but I decided to avoid his boards just in case that's where the computer virus originated.
I also stay off questionable sites like Rumble, Zero Hedge, etc, and usually won't click on links contained within posts here on I-Hub. Even on mainstream news sites like Yahoo and MSN, clicking on links can be treacherous. Anyway, I miss visiting Dew's boards, but can't risk having another computer get zapped. Bigworld said that his computer also got zapped around the same time as mine.
---
Great post!!!, My plan is to buy after a stock market dip or bear market. But, I felt this way in like 1998 and missed out on two fantastic stock years. But, not all stocks fell in the 2 and 1/2 year Bear from March 2000 to October 2002. The NASDAQ lost 66% and the S&P 500 50%. Big foods were slightly up plus dividends. Maybe I ought to buy now? Do me a favor and post this Gates and Nukes article on Dew's board replying to my nuclear post. I'd like to see some nuclear interest over there, Nobody responded to my post yet. There are some good heads over there and we might get some thoughts..>>>>
BTW. Gates bailed on BYND before it started falling hard.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172694771
>> good safe mix <<
I figure the 'return of capital' is as or more important than 'return on capital' :o)
I see Bill Gates is investing in nuclear (TerraPower) -
>>> Bill Gates on the future of nuclear energy, AI <<<
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bill-gates-future-nuclear-energy-ai/story?id=99160110
Excerpt - >>> Most nuclear reactors in the U.S. use water to cool the system, but water is not the best at absorbing heat, and there are pressure risks associated with overheating, which could eventually lead to a meltdown. This new reactor, which is set to open in 2030, will use liquid sodium instead of water to cool it. Sodium's boiling point is eight times higher than water, and, unlike water, liquid sodium does not need to be continually pumped back into the system.
"We've solved all the areas where there have been safety challenges. And we have dramatically less waste," Gates said. "A great thing is that the regulator in the United States is the best in the world and they do a very good job. So part of the process between now and 2030 is an immensely detailed review with that safety commission about how this design is far safer than anything that came before."
The new plant, which has been in the works for 15 years, faced delays at the end of 2022 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February of that year resulted in the loss of a special fuel source made in Russia. But Gates assured these issues are temporary.
"A lot of uranium mines and processing factories got shut down because people expected Russia to stay as a supplier. We do need to build that up domestically," Gates said. "But we have uranium domestically. We have the ability to do the processing domestically... In the long run, because of our uranium deposits here, because of the efficiency of the reactor, this thing can have a completely domestic supply chain."
<<<
---
That looks like a good safe mix. Me and a buddy got into gold and silver stocks in like 98. We both kept adding, my top picks were Sunshine Mining, Newmont Mining and Coeur Mining, which was mostly silver then, more gold now, bought a gold miner. After 911, when gold and silver did not go up we motived it did not go down either. And that was the bottom. but the rise was gradual. It took of in 2005. My problem with my mis was Sunshine I had a disproportionate amount on it as is was like $1. 1 year before it took off I got a positive annual report from Sunshine. 7 months later it went chapter 7, and 5 months later gold an silver took off. I had a total $15,000 total in the 3. I sold it all for $15,000. Had Sunshine not gone BK, I would have had about $55,000.
So, that is why I like your mix. Just an equal amount on Sunshine as the other 2 and it going BK and I might have had over $40,000 from my $15,000.
>> Nuclear sector <<
Fwiw I picked up some modest positions ($1000 each) to get exposure to the nuclear sector (list below). In addition to the 'big picture' fundamentals, the longer term chart setups also look promising -
Global X Uranium ETF (URA) - (1.6 Bil) 0.69%
Sprott Uranium Miners ETF (URNM) - (931 mil) (0.83%)
VanEck Uranium + Nuclear Energy ETF (NLR) - (71 mil) 0.61%
Centrus Energy (LEU) - Nuclear fuel + svcs for the nuclear power industry (704 mil)
---
Nuclear / Centrus Energy - >>> The U.S. Inches Closer To Breaking Russia’s Monopoly On This Rare And Necessary Fuel
Huffington Post
by Alexander C. Kaufman
8-28-23
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-u-s-inches-closer-to-breaking-russia-s-monopoly-on-this-rare-and-necessary-fuel/ar-AA1fSg1m?OCID=ansmsnnews11
At the dawn of the atomic age, the United States mined, enriched and split its own uranium in what ultimately became the world’s largest and most self-reliant fleet of nuclear reactors. As fission fell out of favor in the 1980s, the country began importing more fuel for its reactors. When Washington made a deal with Russia in the 1990s to buy uranium harvested from disassembling the Soviet bombs once aimed at Americans, the domestic industry couldn’t compete, and collapsed.
Three decades later, the U.S. and its allies are scrambling to revive their declining nuclear sectors in a bid to replace planet-heating fossil fuels and, in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine, cut back on imports of Russian natural gas and oil. A new generation of atomic startups are seeking to commercialize types of reactors never before brought to market, and lawmakers from both parties in Congress say they’re ready to help speed up the effort.
If reversing nuclear decline and wooing skeptics in the public who still fear improbable accidents like Fukushima more than the certain but slow-rolling catastrophe of climate change isn’t hard enough, those companies are running into a major problem. There’s only one vendor in the whole world that sells the concentrated form of uranium fuel many of these so-called “advanced” reactors need.
And it’s an arm of the Russian government.
But the U.S. is inching closer to breaking the Kremlin’s monopoly.
On Monday, the Ohio-based Centrus Energy announced a deal to supply the California-based reactor startup Oklo Inc. with a fuel known as high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU.
Pronounced HAY-loo, the fuel compares to traditional reactor fuel the way a heady Belgian ale might stack up to a Miller Lite. The old-school, large-scale reactors that comprise the entire U.S. fleet can’t stomach HALEU, which is enriched to the point where as much as 20% of the uranium atoms can be split, as opposed to the typical stuff that maxes out at 5%. But the sleek new reactor technologies companies like Oklo, Bill Gates-backed TerraPower and the Maryland-based X-energy hope to bring to market in the coming years run on that stronger stuff.
As it is, the U.S. produces just 5% of its own traditional reactor fuel from a New Mexico facility owned by Urenco, a consortium jointly owned by the British, German and Dutch governments. It’s been difficult enough to get more domestic production up and running for that fuel, much less convince private investors to spend billions of dollars on facilities to manufacture fuel for reactors that don’t even exist yet.
This has created a “chicken-and-egg problem,” said Dan Leistikow, the vice president of communications at Centrus.
“It’s very difficult to sell reactors without a domestic fuel supply,” he said in an interview Sunday. “But it’s very difficult to put the investment together to build the fuel supply until there’s a base of customers.”
Making matters tougher, the energy-intensive “gaseous diffusion” technology once used to enrich uranium went out of fashion. Countries like France and Russia built what are called centrifuges, cylindrical machines that spin gasified uranium at extremely high speeds to turn the metal from its natural form into the unstable radioactive isotope that can be easily split in a fission reaction. But the U.S. simply lets its old enrichment industry shut down without investing in anything new.
Centrus ? which was born out of the Manhattan Project and split from the federal government to become a private company in 1992 ? has been slowly working to change that, building a pilot facility in Piketon, Ohio, that in June got the first stamp of approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But the company has yet to receive enough investment to expand to full capacity.
Once that demand lines up, things could move quickly, Leistikow said. It would take 3 1/2 years to get enough centrifuges up and running to produce 6 metric tons of HALEU per year. But the company said it could roughly double its capacity every six months after that with the right amount of money flowing to it.
Democrats earmarked roughly $700 million in President Joe Biden’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act climate law for producing HALEU at home. But Leistikow said that amounts to a down payment.
While Centrus has declined to say the exact dollar figure, chief executive Dan Poneman, who served in the Obama administration as a deputy secretary of energy, said on a recent podcast interview that the figure is in the multi-billion-dollar range.
Congress appears to be responding to that need, with bills from Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and House funneling billions toward domestic fuel enrichment.
In the meantime, Centrus last month made a deal to sell HALEU to TerraPower, which is working to debut its reactors by converting a coal power plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming, before the end of the decade. As part of its latest agreement with Oklo, Centrus said it would help manufacture some of the components for the power stations from which the California-based company plans to operate its reactors and buy electricity from a planned Oklo plant in Piketon for the enrichment facility.
In a statement, Oklo CEO Jacob DeWitte cast the “wide-ranging landmark partnership” as a turning point for nuclear energy in the U.S., and a sign that the private market is warming to a technology that many banks still refuse to fund. The announcement comes a month after Oklo said it would go public on the stock market as part of a merger with an investment firm owned by Sam Altman, the famed technology investor and chief executive of ChatGPT-maker OpenAI.
“This partnership will represent an important step in lowering the cost of energy by establishing a critical domestic fuel supply infrastructure,” Altman said in a statement.
Oklo declined to provide a dollar figure for the deal.
While much depends on how much money the federal government ultimately decides to put up, Leistikow said the latest deals are a key piece of the puzzle falling into place.
“Every enrichment plant everywhere in the world has been built with government financing and government ownership,” he said. “What we’re looking to see here is a public-private partnership that combines federal investment, private investment and commercial offtake agreements. That would level the playing field that’s currently dominated by foreign state-owned corporations.”
<<<
---
>> excuse not to build (nuclear power plants) <<
Yes, and the broader idea was to keep the emerging countries backward. For an extended period of years the US sat unchallenged atop the 'unipolar' world and could get away with it. In the early 1990s the Soviet Union had collapsed, and China was not yet developed enough to be a viable competitor to the US.
So the US/West finance oligarchy was the only game in town, and used the IMF and World Bank to indebt and asset strip the emerging countries (see John Perkins' famous book 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman'). But now these emerging countries have a choice (China-Russia-BRICS), and they're voting with their feet.
---
And Fukushima as an excuse not to build? A high school science class would not build a plant that close to the ocean.
Thanks, that's an excellent article. It's no wonder that China-Russia-BRICS are growing so fast -- China and Russia are helping the emerging countries build nuclear powerplants right and left -- something the US had refused to even consider.
---> 33 of the reactors are being constructed or planned outside each respective country... Russia has the largest number of overseas reactors with 19... including Turkey (their first nuke plant) and Egypt (their first also), and Hungary, and 'Russia's acceptance of spent nuclear fuel is also attractive to emerging countries'
China is building nuke plant in Pakistan, and has one planned for Argentina.
In response, the US is being forced to offer the more advanced 4th generation nuke plants / SMRs to countries like Philippines, Thailand, and Romania.
>>> Another issue is nuclear fuel. Uranium enrichment has become the weak link for Western nations. Enrichment facilities are limited, and Russia is the global leader for that process.
In April, the U.S., the U.K., France, Canada and Japan formed a nuclear fuel alliance. While the aim is to shut out Russian fuel from Western reactors, doing so will not be easy. <<<
So like it or not, the US is being forced to start helping these emerging countries develop and modernize, since otherwise they will all join BRICS. But with dozens of countries already clamoring to join BRICS, it could be too little / too late.
---
gfp, I had forgotten I had posted here, did not have it book marked, now bookmarked.
China and Russia account for 70% of new nuclear plants
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-and-Russia-account-for-70-of-new-nuclear-plants
TOKYO -- Russia and China are building up an outsized presence in the field of nuclear power, with the countries accounting for nearly 70% of reactors under construction or in planning worldwide.
Meanwhile, construction plans in Japan, the U.S. and Europe were largely put on hold after the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, resulting in a stagnation of related industries in those countries.
As of January, there were 110 third-generation nuclear reactors, for which safety measures were strengthened in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, under construction or planning, according to the Japan Electric Power Information Center.
China accounts for the most, with 46, followed by Russia with 30. The two countries account for 69% of the total.
Notably, 33 of the reactors are being constructed or planned outside each respective country. Russia has the largest number of overseas reactors with 19, and despite growing opposition from Europe and the U.S. following its invasion of Ukraine, it maintains a strong global influence in nuclear power.
In April, Russian President Vladimir Putin participated remotely in a ceremony to mark the arrival of the first fuel at the under-construction Akkuyu nuclear power plant in Turkey. Russian state-owned nuclear power company Rosatom plans to begin operations at the plant, Turkey's first, this year. The project is a symbol of the deep ties between the countries, which are a concern for the West.
Russia's nuclear power diplomacy is extending to other countries as well. In May, Rosatom began full-scale construction on Unit 3 of the Dabaa nuclear plant in Egypt, the country's first.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban met with Rosatom officials this month to discuss the company's plans to build a new nuclear power plant in the country's south. Hungary opposes sanctions the European Union has imposed on Rosatom.
"Many developing countries take a positive view of Russia," Kacper Szulecki of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs told British scientific journal Nature Energy. Russia's acceptance of spent nuclear fuel is also attractive to emerging countries.
Meanwhile, China is deepening its engagement with Pakistan. In May, the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority issued an operating permit for the Unit 3 reactor of the Karachi nuclear power plant. This reactor is the Hualong One, which was designed by Chinese players including the state-owned China National Nuclear Corp.
Hualong One has an output of about 1 gigawatt and is based on U.S. and French pressurized water reactor technology. China's involvement in Pakistan is deep, including financial assistance and construction of the Karachi Unit 2 reactor.
China also plans to build a nuclear plant in Argentina. The U.S. asked Argentina to cancel the project, but President Alberto Fernandez decided to go ahead with it, waving away possible threats posed by China as something promoted by the U.S. in an interview with Chinese media.
"China is pitching Hualong One to emerging countries, and exports will definitely increase," said Yuji Kuroda of the Japan Electric Power Information Center. If China and Russia boost their dominance in nuclear power, a key to energy security, their influence in the international political arena will become even stronger.
The U.S., Japan and Europe are hoping to catch up using small modular reactors (SMRs), considered fourth-generation technology.
SMRs are relatively small, with an output of 300 megawatts or less. They are considered very safe because they are designed to more easily cool nuclear fuel in case of an accident.
itachi-GE Nuclear Energy -- a joint venture of General Electric and Hitachi -- and U.S. company NuScale Power separately aim to bring SMRs online in the latter half of the decade.
"The U.S. government is helping to advance the development of this groundbreaking American technology," U.S. President Joe Biden said about NuScale's plan to build an SMR in Romania.
Washington is moving to curb the rise of China and Russia in this field by promoting SMRs in such countries as Thailand and the Philippines as well.
Japan has plans for eight new reactors, including one at the Oma nuclear power plant now under construction in Aomori prefecture. Screenings of proposed reactors stalled after safety standards were tightened following the Fukushima disaster, but the government changed course in light of a power crunch. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has called for existing reactors to be replaced with next-generation reactors that are safer.
But Japan's competitiveness in nuclear power has waned. Its exports related to nuclear power fell from 131.4 billion yen ($943 million at current rates) in 2010 to 21.4 billion yen in 2020. A similar descent can be seen in the U.S. and many parts of Europe because they were wary about building new reactors.
"Supply chains in Japan, the U.S. and Europe have weakened due to such factors as the retirement of engineers, so there are more cases now in which we lose to China and Russia in terms of technology," said an official at Japan's Agency for Natural Resources and Energy.
Another issue is nuclear fuel. Uranium enrichment has become the weak link for Western nations. Enrichment facilities are limited, and Russia is the global leader for that process.
In April, the U.S., the U.K., France, Canada and Japan formed a nuclear fuel alliance. While the aim is to shut out Russian fuel from Western reactors, doing so will not be easy.
????? URA or where?
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=URA&p=D&yr=5&mn=0&dy=0&id=p47054114064
>>> Five of the World’s Leading Small Modular Reactor Companies <<<
https://c3newsmag.com/five-of-the-worlds-leading-small-modular-reactor-companies/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIt-KGiJ7YgAMVB9PVCh10YA_NEAAYAiAAEgKujvD_BwE
---
Centrus Energy (LEU) -
Jim Rickards has mentioned the SMR / Small Modular Reactor space as a promising area, and Centrus and TerraPower recently announced an expanded collaboration (link below). Bill Gates was one of the founders of TerraPower, which is still a private company -
>>> TerraPower and Centrus expand efforts to commercialize domestic HALEU production <<<
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/terrapower-centrus-expand-efforts-commercialize-104500179.html
_____________________________
>>> Centrus Energy Corp. (LEU) supplies nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and internationally. The company operates through two segments, Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Technical Solutions. The LEU segment sells separative work units (SWU) component of LEU; SWU and natural uranium components of LEU; and natural uranium for utilities that operate nuclear power plants. The Technical Solutions segment offers technical, manufacturing, engineering, procurement, construction, and operations services to public and private sector customers, including the American Centrifuge engineering and testing activities. The company was formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.
<<<
---
>>> Centrus Energy Corp. (LEU) supplies nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and internationally. The company operates through two segments, Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Technical Solutions. The LEU segment sells separative work units (SWU) component of LEU; SWU and natural uranium components of LEU; and natural uranium for utilities that operate nuclear power plants. The Technical Solutions segment offers technical, manufacturing, engineering, procurement, construction, and operations services to public and private sector customers, including the American Centrifuge engineering and testing activities. The company was formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.
<<<
---
>>> How America’s push for the atomic bomb spawned enduring radioactive waste problems in St. Louis
Story by By MICHAEL PHILLIS and JIM SALTER
Associated Press
July 12, 2023
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/how-america-s-push-for-the-atomic-bomb-spawned-enduring-radioactive-waste-problems-in-st-louis/ar-AA1dLm1d?OCID=ansmsnnews11
ST. LOUIS (AP) — The federal government and companies responsible for nuclear bomb production and atomic waste storage sites in the St. Louis area in the mid-20th century were aware of health risks, spills, improperly stored contaminants and other problems but often ignored them, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Decades later, even with much of the cleanup complete, the aftereffects haunt the region. Federal health investigators have found an increased cancer risk for some people who, as children, played in a creek contaminated with uranium waste. A grade school closed last year amid radiation concerns. A landfill operator is spending millions to keep underground smoldering from reaching nuclear waste illegally dumped in the 1970s.
The AP examined hundreds of pages of internal memos, inspection reports and other items dating to the early 1950s, and found nonchalance and indifference to the risks of materials used in the development of nuclear weapons during and after World War II.
This story is part of an ongoing collaboration between The Missouri Independent, the nonprofit newsroom MuckRock and The Associated Press. The government documents were obtained by outside researchers through the Freedom of Information Act and shared with the news organizations.
Consider a 1966 government inspection report on a site in St. Louis County, which noted that “in a number of places along the roadway” material that later tested positive for radioactivity “appeared to have fallen from vehicles.”
A follow-up inspection three months later found the material was still sitting on the road. The company, Continental Mining and Milling Co., said it was having trouble with the contractor — a lone man who used a shovel and broom to pick up the atomic waste and put it in a pickup truck.
The company was not penalized.
The AP review didn’t uncover evidence of criminal wrongdoing. What it did find were repeated instances where companies, contractors or the government could have addressed significant problems but didn’t.
Dawn Chapman of the activist group Just Moms STL — a group pushing for cleanup and federal buyouts in an area near the airport — said the region “saved our country” with its work on the nuclear program but paid a terrible cost.
"We are a national sacrifice zone,” she said.
THE HISTORIC ROLE OF ST. LOUIS
St. Louis was part of a geographically scattered national effort to build a nuclear bomb that was tested in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Much of the work in the St. Louis area involved uranium, where Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. was a major processor of the element into a concentrated form that could be further refined elsewhere into the material that made it into weapons.
“This is an enterprise of heavy industry,” said Gwendolyn Verhoff, a historian at St. Louis Community College.
Just months after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, Mallinckrodt began processing uranium near downtown. In 1946, the government bought land near the airport and began trucking nuclear waste from the Mallinckrodt facility.
Meanwhile, starting in 1941, the government began making explosives at a new plant in Weldon Spring. Production there ended in 1945, but not before soil, sediments and some springs were contaminated.
In 1957, the Atomic Energy Commission opened a plant in Weldon Spring and Mallinckrodt moved its uranium processing there. Radioactive waste contaminated the area, including a large quarry that eventually became a Superfund cleanup site in 1987. The rest of the Weldon Spring site was added two years later.
Alison Carrick, co-director of “The First Secret City,” a documentary about the region’s nuclear history, said after the war some companies thought that byproducts of the radioactive material could be sold.
But that didn’t work. So the waste moved to new sites, contaminating more land, near more people.
In 1966, the Atomic Energy Commission demolished and buried buildings at the airport site. Continental Mining and Milling Co. moved the waste to 9200 Latty Ave. in nearby Bridgeton, piling it in a heap, the commission said at the time. Radioactive barrels lay outside the fence. Storage was so haphazard that even the path to the site was contaminated by trucks that spread waste on their hauls from 1966 to 1969.
Tons of that nuclear waste flowed into Coldwater Creek, contaminating the often-flooding waterway and adjacent yards for 14 miles, state and federal investigators determined.
In 1973, the uranium processor Cotter Corp. took hazardous leached barium sulfate from Latty Avenue to the West Lake Landfill, also in Bridgeton. The material contained uranium residue.
The government cleanup of Weldon Spring is complete, but the site is considered permanently damaged and will require oversight into perpetuity. Rather than remove the waste, the government built a 75-foot-tall mound, covered in rock, to serve as a permanent disposal cell for much of the waste. The government said the site is safe, but some local residents still worry. About 5,300 people live in Weldon Spring, but tens of thousands more live within a few miles in neighboring O'Fallon.
Federal officials plan to remove some of the waste at West Lake Landfill and cap the rest. Cleanup of Coldwater Creek is far along, but isn’t expected to finish until 2038. Cleanup efforts have cost taxpayers more than $1 billion, and millions more will be needed to finish the job.
The AEC, historically responsible for the nation's nuclear weapons program, was abolished in the 1970s, in no small part because of public criticism of its handling of nuclear safety. The Department of Energy is now responsible for overseeing the country's nuclear weapons and waste. The department has publicly detailed the environmental damage earlier waste mismanagement caused to people and the environment. Now, the Army Corps of Engineers handles cleanup at several former nuclear program sites, including in St. Louis.
Army Corps spokesman George Stringham said cleanup is their focus.
“The historic storing, hauling, and transportation methods have contributed significantly to the challenges we face today,” he said.
Phone and email messages seeking comment from Mallinckrodt and General Atomics, which acquired Cotter Corp. in 2000, were not immediately returned. Continental Mining and Milling Co. no longer exists.
IGNORING THE ENVIRONMENT
Less than a year after victory in World War II, Winston Churchill traveled to a small Missouri town and announced a turning point in history: an “iron curtain" had descended on Europe. The brutality of global war quickly transitioned to a dangerous standoff with the Soviet Union. In America's push for nuclear dominance, across the St. Louis region, when harmful waste was dumped, officials were indifferent to the hazards posed by materials that were so vital for the nuclear program.
Take a March 17, 1953, memo from Merril Eisenbud, health and safety division director for the Atomic Energy Commission, concerning a barium cake spill that left a half-mile of road, its shoulder and part of a corn field with nuclear contamination. Eisenbud wrote that in his opinion “no emergency existed."
“A decision as to what action to take will undoubtedly involve a balance between costs, potential risks, public relations aspects,” Eisenbud said.
In a May 27, 1966, memo from a senior radiation specialist for the Atomic Energy Commission, it was noted that at Continental, an inspector found a pile of uranium material 30 feet wide, 100 feet long and nearly 8 feet high that was not in a secure area behind fencing and a locked gate, as the contract required. About 100 barrels of “miscellaneous residues” also were found outside the fenced area.
An on-site manager said he was unfamiliar with the storage requirements, the inspector wrote. When he turned to the company’s vice president in Chicago, he got nowhere.
The vice president "immediately submitted that most of what the inspector was talking about was not understood,” the memo stated. “He went on to explain that he had taken over as Executive Vice President of CMM as a protection of the money invested by a number of individuals.”
Continental was not penalized.
It wasn’t just in St. Louis. At the arid Los Alamos site in New Mexico where weapons were developed, for example, waste was thrown into nearby canyons.
Handling waste “was shielded from any greater public oversight or attention,” Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told AP. Environmental standards at the time were looser and the program’s secrecy allowed bad practices to continue for too long, he said.
Workers received some protection but health risks were in some cases ignored or written off.
Another 1966 report noted that Continental used the Nuclear Consultant Corp.’s field badge service to track radiation exposure among workers. The report found radiation levels so high for some workers that some at the company doubted the results.
“They did not see how people could be getting that much exposure,” it stated.
The memo showed no evidence that any action was taken.
WORKER HARM AND ADVOCACY
Efforts to force cleanup have been led largely by women who wouldn’t take no for an answer.
Denise Brock’s father worked for years at Mallinckrodt. When he had cancer when she was young, she would sometimes stay home from school to help care for him. He died in 1978.
When Brock learned in 2001 that former Mallinckrodt workers with certain types of cancer were eligible for federal compensation, her effort to help her mother get payment grew into an activist role. In 2003, she founded the United Nuclear Weapons Workers in her home, and worked with others to convince federal lawmakers to make it easier for thousands of former workers to get compensation for their illnesses.
Brock’s prodding led the government to begin offering up to $400,000 to those who worked at nuclear facilities across the country who developed certain cancers, or their survivors. Over the past two decades, the government has paid out $23 billion.
PRESENT-DAY FEAR
While nuclear workers had direct exposure, people who live near contamination sites worry about uncertainty. Many who grew up in the area weren’t told about the risks for decades.
In 2007, Chapman and Karen Nickel were so concerned about cancer and other unusual illnesses in their St. Louis County neighborhoods that they formed Just Moms STL.
In 2019, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued a report that found people who regularly played in Coldwater Creek as children from the 1960s to the 1990s may have a slight increased risk of bone cancer, lung cancer and leukemia. The agency determined that those exposed daily to the creek starting in the 2000s, when cleanup began, could have a small increased risk of lung cancer.
Some experts are skeptical. Tim Jorgensen, a professor of radiation medicine at Georgetown University, said the biggest risk factor for cancer is age and local radiation’s contribution would be so low as to be hard to detect, he said.
“The public also tends to overestimate the risk of radiation-induced cancer,” Jorgensen said.
The government's sloppy handling of nuclear contamination over decades has understandably made people doubt official promises that conditions are safe now, said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear expert and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.
“There is zero trust," he said.
People in the St. Louis area are concerned that more illnesses are caused by the contamination and some are pushing for legislation to compensate those who are sick. Others have sued those responsible for the waste.
Several people with serious illnesses, or whose loved ones are sick, met recently at Nickel’s house.
Jim Gaffney, now in his 60s, grew up in the 1960s playing in Coldwater Creek — his childhood home backed up to the waterway.
“I was always in the creek,” Gaffney said. “Told not to, but we had seven kids. Mom couldn’t watch us all. We just thought it was fun. We built mudslides and everything. I’m sure I got exposed.”
He and his wife, Susie, loved the neighborhood so much that when they got married, they moved into a home there. Their children grew up playing in a park that backs to the creek, Susie Gaffney said.
“We had no warnings. We had no fears," she said.
Jim Gaffney was diagnosed with Stage 4 Hodgkin lymphoma in 1981 and given little chance to survive. A bone-marrow transplant saved his life, but the toll of the radiation, chemotherapy and the disease has been enormous.
“Now I’ve got hypertension, heart failure, I’ve had at least five bladder tumors removed since ’95. I’m still here, but it’s not been easy,” he said.
The Gaffneys' son Joe has battled thyroid cancer since 1998 when he was 18.
Tricia Byrnes swam in Weldon Spring quarries as a teenager. Eight years ago, her 15-year-old son was diagnosed with a rare cancer of the thymus, a small organ near the heart. She wonders about a connection.
Last year, she became so frustrated with the lack of acknowledgement about the health risk at Weldon Spring that she successfully ran as a Republican for the Missouri House, where she is pushing for federal compensation for those who believe their illnesses are connected to contamination. She said it's infuriating that the federal government not only allowed the contamination that made people sick, but didn’t do enough to contain it.
“What the hell is wrong with people?” she asked.
Concerns flare up, even when the government ensures safety. Last October, a private scientist hired by lawyers involved in lawsuits over Coldwater Creek contamination conducted a study that suggested radioactive contamination at Jana Elementary School in Florissant, Missouri, which sits along the creek.
The Army Corps of Engineers followed up with its own study indicating the school and playground were safe. But in March, the school board decided to close the school after calls to do so from politicians from both sides of the aisle.
The unease surrounding the grade school was evidence that decades later, the region continues to grapple with its nuclear legacy.
Producing nuclear weapons was a concerted national effort. Cleaning up the waste requires a similarly coordinated campaign, said Verhoff, the historian.
“Can we fund our cleanups? Can we react with the same urgency?" she said.
<<<
---
>>> BWXT-led Team Awarded $45 Billion Environmental Management Contract for DOE’s Hanford Site
Businesswire
April 17, 2023
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bwxt-led-team-awarded-45-203000678.html
LYNCHBURG, Va., April 17, 2023--(BUSINESS WIRE)--BWX Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: BWXT) today announced a contract with an estimated value of up to $45 billion over a 10-year ordering period from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for environmental management operations at the Hanford Site in Washington.
The DOE announced that the Hanford Integrated Tank Disposition Contract (ITDC) was awarded to Hanford Tank Waste Operations & Closure, LLC (H2C), which is a joint venture led by a BWXT subsidiary and includes subsidiaries of Amentum and Fluor.
"This is the largest single contract award in our company’s history and is a stair-step achievement as we strengthen our leadership position in environmental restoration at highly technical projects across the nation," said Rex Geveden, BWXT’s president and chief executive officer. "Our company remains highly committed to this critical mission for the U.S. Department of Energy and our emphasis on environmental stewardship and sustainability more broadly going forward."
"Our team is honored to take on the largest and most complex radioactive waste cleanup project in the United States," said Heatherly Dukes, president of BWXT’s Technical Services Group. "We are committed to working with our DOE Environmental Management customer, regulatory authorities and the Tri-Cities community in safely reducing the environmental liabilities at the site in an efficient and effective manner that is protective of the workforce, the public and the environment."
The scope of the ITDC includes operation of Hanford tank farm facilities, eventual operation of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, and responsibility for other core functions such as project management, security and emergency services, business performance, and environment, safety, health and quality.
The DOE is engaged in one of the great public works projects of this century at the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington. Responsible for the federal government’s cleanup of the legacy of more than 40 years of producing plutonium through the 1980s, DOE is transforming the site back into an operations mode to treat tank waste from the production era. More information is available from the DOE’s Office of Environmental Management.
<<<
---
Yes, looks interesting, and the small nuclear reactors could supplement solar and wind by providing steady 'baseload' power, since solar/wind only provide intermittent power. Otherwise they'll need massive energy storage ability, and there isn't enough lithium in the world for that, so a breakthrough in energy storage technology will also be needed.
Anyway, some cool science, but since it's all based on a known myth (global warming), you have to wonder about the globalist's broader motivations. Unfortunately, like the CBDC's, the 'name of the game is control'.
>>> Britain could construct as many as seven new nuclear power stations by 2050 as part of the expansion, Kwarteng told the Telegraph. Ministers have agreed to set up a development vehicle to identify sites and speed up the planning process, the newspaper reported. The government is also in talks over a fleet of hundreds of mini-reactors, the paper said. <<<
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171456716
---
>>> Mini-reactors are gaining traction in the push for greener grids
Bloomberg
August 31, 2020
https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/8/31/mini-reactors-are-gaining-traction-in-the-push-for/
NuScale reactor
The nuclear industry has been stalled for years now, struggling to compete with cheaper forms of power and viewed as suspect ever since the accidents at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Only two reactors are being built in the U.S., in Georgia, and they are years behind schedule and weighed down by cost overruns and political opposition.
But now there’s a race to take nuclear power in a radically different direction in a bid to revive the industry. Companies around the world, including NuScale Power LLC in the U.S., China National Nuclear Corp. and Russia’s Rosatom, are developing a new generation of reactors, with some designs that will be more than 90 per cent smaller than the hulking facilities that have dominated the industry for decades. One model can even fit into a single-family house.
These power plants are designed to be faster and easier to build, and may make nuclear energy an affordable — and cleaner — option in developing nations that don’t need huge reactors. Some climate activists, while welcoming the potential of carbon-free electricity, aren’t entirely sold on the argument. They still worry about their safety. And, with the cost of solar and wind plunging, some wonder if small reactors make economic sense even with their lower price tags.
But as governments around the world set ambitious plans to wean themselves off fossil fuels, there’s a growing awareness that closing coal or natural gas plants could lead to electricity shortfalls, as seen in California’s rolling blackouts earlier this month. Nuclear power accounts for 20 per cent of U.S. power, a number that could grow if small nuclear sites are put in place to ease that transition. Supporters anticipate a renaissance in fission that could draw close to $6 trillion in global investment through 2050.
“At least for now, and for the foreseeable future it’s difficult to see a renewables-only energy system,” said Chris Colbert, chief strategy officer at Portland, Oregon-based NuScale.
Advocates say small modular reactors, or SMRs as they’re generally called, can be built at factories, delivered by truck or train, and then assembled on-site, saving time and money. Utilities can install just one or bundle several together, expanding the potential market by including countries that don’t need a big conventional nuclear plant. Some designs will also provide industrial heat as well as electricity — one potential use is in remote villages in far northern latitudes that need both.
China National Nuclear was the first to pass an International Atomic Energy Agency safety review for an SMR design. It began building a demonstration version of its 125-megawatt Nimble Dragon plant in 2019. And in Russia, Rosatom last year introduced the world’s first operational SMR, on a ship that can be sent all over the world. Companies in South Korea, Canada and the U.K. are also developing similar designs.
In the U.S., NuScale is working on a 60-megawatt reactor design, enough to power 48,000 U.S. homes, and its design just won approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this month. The cylindrical power generator would be about 65 feet tall and nine feet in diameter. That’s tiny compared to big, conventional reactors that typically have about 1,000 megawatts of capacity. And it’s less expensive. A single power plant with 12 NuScale reactor-modules linked together would cost about $3 billion, compared to some major projects that have exceeded $20 billion for conventional nuclear plants. NuScale’s first commercial plant would go into service in Idaho in 2029 if all goes as planned.
NuScale’s design is based on the pressurized water reactors that are widely used now in conventional nuclear plants, so the technology is familiar to regulators and developers. Other developers are trying different technologies. Oklo Inc., based in Sunnyvale, Calif., is working on a so-called fast reactor that could use nuclear waste from existing power plants as fuel, and is cooled with a liquid alkaline metal instead of water. And billionaire Bill Gates is backing TerraPower LLC, which is working on another type of fast reactor that uses liquid sodium as coolant.
“There’s a race, sort of like at the dawn of nuclear energy,” said Ted Jones, senior director for national security and international programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade association.
The small plants are also safer, the developers say. The key risk from a nuclear plant is that radiation could leak, but since smaller reactors have less nuclear material at their cores, there’s less potential risk. NuScale says its designs could be installed in below-ground water pools, which would minimize the risk of failure because they wouldn’t need pumps to circulate water for cooling.
But along with a smaller size, these new designs may also have smaller and weaker systems to control a potential radiation leak, said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. That’s worrisome because there’s also been a push to build SMRs closer to population centres, he said.
“You could have a smaller reactor but weaker containment and less distance to population centres,” Lyman said. “Paradoxically, a small reactor could end up releasing more material than a large reactor.”
Small reactors are seen as a key to reviving an industry that’s far from thriving now. Construction of conventional nuclear plants is at a 10-year low. There were 52 under construction globally in the first quarter, the lowest in a decade, according to BloombergNEF. And more than 20 per cent of those projects are facing challenges that could derail them, including financing issues and political opposition.
The only nuclear project in the U.S. are the two reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, an effort that’s now years behind schedule and has doubled in cost to more than US$28 billion. The $21 billion V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina was abandoned in 2017 after the lead contractor went bankrupt.
Small reactors could change the equation, and the catalyst will be efforts to rein in climate change, according to Brett Rampal, nuclear team manager for the research group Clean Air Task Force. More than a dozen U.S. states and territories have moved to require carbon-free electricity grids, led by California’s plan to eliminate carbon altogether by 2045.
While solar and wind installations are surging, they can’t supply power around the clock. That was part of the reason California, which retired nine gigawatts of gas plants in recent years, had power shortages and blackouts earlier this month as a heat wave drove up demand for power. Closing baseload power plants can create a gap, said Rampal. “These advanced reactors are looking to fill that.”
Oklo’s reactor would have 1.5 megawatts of capacity, would be small enough to fit inside a house and will have enough output to run about 1,200 U.S. homes. The NRC accepted the company’s application for a license in March, the first to use a new evaluation process that the agency implemented to accelerate the review process. Jacob DeWitte, Oklo’s chief executive officer and co-founder, said the design could win approval within two years and it may have the system in operation a year after that.
“Nuclear is a really important part of what our climate solutions will be,” DeWitte said. “This is where things are going.”
But there are questions about whether small nuclear plants will be cost-competitive in an age of renewables. NuScale, for instance, is aiming for a power plant that can sell power for $55 a megawatt-hour. TerraPower is developing a 345-megawatt reactor that would have a levelized cost of electricity of $50 a megawatt-hour. It can be linked to a system that stores heat in molten salt to produce additional power at times of high demand. CEO Chris Levesque said that would boost capacity to 500 megawatts and reduce the cost to $40. The TerraPower system is expected to cost $1 billion, and Levesque said a demonstration plant could be in operation by 2028. That type of flexibility would have been very helpful when California ran short of power earlier this month.
“We believe there’s going to be a need for many plants like this,” Levesque said.
Yet wind power in much of the world is now about $44 a megawatt-hour and solar is $50. In some regions, renewable energy will be below $20 a megawatt hour by the end of the decade, according to BloombergNEF.
“The logic behind building small modular reactors doesn’t make sense economically,” said Lyman.
The shift comes as the U.S. badly lags other countries in building big reactors. Most of that market now is dominated by Russia and China, while the U. S. is “entirely absent,” according to a March report from the Energy Department, which flagged the development as a significant blow to U.S. strategic interests.
The U.S. is taking steps to address this, notably by lifting a ban on providing government funding for nuclear projects in other countries, especially emerging markets. Most of any future nuclear exports will be small nuclear designs, according to Chris Gadomski, nuclear analyst for BloombergNEF.
“We’re not going to be exporting large reactors anymore,” he said. “Little countries don’t need big reactors.”
<<<
---
>>> Researchers achieve milestone on path toward nuclear fusion energy
Reuters
1-26-22
By Will Dunham
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/researchers-achieve-milestone-path-toward-nuclear-fusion-energy-2022-01-26/
WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - U.S. government scientists said on Wednesday they have taken an important step in the long trek toward making nuclear fusion - the very process that powers stars - a viable energy source for humankind.
Using the world's largest laser, the researchers coaxed fusion fuel for the first time to heat itself beyond the heat they zapped into it, achieving a phenomenon called a burning plasma that marked a stride toward self-sustaining fusion energy.
The energy produced was modest - about the equivalent of nine nine-volt batteries of the kind that power smoke detectors and other small devices. But the experiments at a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory facility in California represented a milestone in the decades-long quest to harness fusion energy, even as the researchers cautioned that years of more work are needed.
The experiments produced the self-heating of matter in a plasma state through nuclear fusion, which is the combining of atomic nuclei to release energy. Plasma is one of the various states of matter, alongside solid, liquid and gas.
"If you want to make a camp fire, you want to get the fire to hot enough that the wood can keep itself burning," said Alex Zylstra, an experimental physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory - part of the U.S. Energy Department - and lead author of the research published in the journal Nature.
"This is a good analogy for a burning plasma, where the fusion is now starting to become self-sustaining," Zylstra said.
The scientists directed 192 laser beams toward a small target containing a capsule less than a tenth of an inch (about 2 mm) in diameter filled with fusion fuel consisting of a plasma of deuterium and tritium - two isotopes, or forms, of hydrogen.
At very high temperatures, the nucleus of the deuterium and the nucleus of the tritium fuse, a neutron and a positively charged particle called an "alpha particle" - consisting of two protons and two neutrons - emerge, and energy is released.
The Target Bay of the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, U.S., is seen in an undated handout image. NIF's 192 laser beams converge at the center of this giant sphere to make a tiny hydrogen fuel pellet implode.
"Fusion requires that we get the fuel incredibly hot in order for it to burn - like a regular fire, but for fusion we need about a hundred million degrees (Fahrenheit). For decades we've been able to cause fusion reactions to occur in experiments by putting a lot of heating into the fuel, but this isn't good enough to produce net energy from fusion," Zylstra said.
"Now, for the first time, fusion reactions occurring in the fuel provided most of the heating - so fusion is starting to dominate over the heating we did. This is a new regime called a burning plasma," Zylstra said.
Unlike burning fossil fuels or the fission process of existing nuclear power plants, fusion offers the prospect of abundant energy without pollution, radioactive waste or greenhouse gases. Nuclear fission energy comes from splitting atoms. Fusion energy comes from fusing atoms together, just like inside stars, including our sun.
Private-sector ventures - dozens of companies and institutions - also are pursuing a fusion energy future, with some oil companies even investing.
"Fusion energy is the holy grail of clean limitless energy," said Annie Kritcher of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, lead designer for the experiments conducted in 2020 and 2021 at the National Ignition Facility and first author of a companion paper published in the journal Nature Physics.
In these experiments, fusion produced about 10 times as much energy as went into heating the fuel, but less than 10% of the total amount of laser energy because the process remains inefficient, Zylstra said. The laser was used for only about 10 billionths of a second in each experiment, with fusion production lasting 100 trillionths of a second, Kritcher added.
Zylstra said he is encouraged by the progress.
"Making fusion a reality is an enormously complex technological challenge, and it will require serious investment and innovation to make it practical and economical," Zylstra said. "I view fusion as a decadal-scale challenge for it to be a viable source of energy."
<<<
---
>>> U.K. to Unveil Energy Revamp With Focus on Nuclear and Wind
Bloomberg
Rodney Jefferson and Ellen Milligan
April 3, 2022
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-k-unveil-energy-revamp-102254279.html
(Bloomberg) -- The U.K. will detail plans to broaden its energy sources this week as the war in Ukraine, sanctions on Russia and a cost-of-living crisis forces countries across Europe to urgently revamp how they generate electricity and heat homes.
The main focus will be on nuclear and wind power, two industries that haven’t been short of controversy. Government minister Grant Shapps said on Sunday he expects to see proposals for more nuclear reactors, including smaller capacity ones, and for scaling up off-shore wind farms. He doesn’t advocate putting up more turbines onshore, though.
“I don’t favor a vast increase in onshore wind farms -- they can create something of an eyesore for communities as well as noise problems,” Shapps, the U.K.’s transport secretary, told Sky News. “For reasons of environmental protections, the way to go with this is largely on-sea.”
The war in Ukraine has put the spotlight on energy imports, and the European Union is redoubling efforts to reduce dependency on Russia, particularly for gas. But prices were already soaring before Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion, and officials in some countries have warned that controls may be put on gas usage and diesel consumption.
Speaking later on the BBC, Shapps ruled out rationing in the U.K. because the country relies far less on Russian imports than other large European economies such as Germany. He said Britain, though, was still exposed to surging costs because of the international market.
A U.K. government cap on gas and electricity prices jumped on April 1, and charity groups warned that millions of people will be pushed into energy poverty -- that is, having to choose between paying heating bills or buying food.
The immediate challenge is to spread the mix of production. Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is due to announce details of the new energy security plan within days. As well as wind and nuclear, there will also be an effort to increase solar electricity generation.
Britain could construct as many as seven new nuclear power stations by 2050 as part of the expansion, Kwarteng told the Telegraph. Ministers have agreed to set up a development vehicle to identify sites and speed up the planning process, the newspaper reported. The government is also in talks over a fleet of hundreds of mini-reactors, the paper said.
When it comes to wind, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has his sights set on a giant farm of turbines in the Irish Sea to be built within 12 months, the Telegraph reported separately.
<<<
---
>>> US Seeks $4.3 Billion for Uranium to Wean Off Russia Supply
Bloomberg
by Ari Natter
June 7, 2022
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-seeks-4-3-billion-191806632.html
(Bloomberg) -- The Biden administration is pushing lawmakers to support a $4.3 billion plan to buy enriched uranium directly from domestic producers to wean the US off Russian imports of the nuclear-reactor fuel, according to a person familiar with the matter. Shares of uranium companies surged.
Energy Department officials have met with key congressional staff, where they said such funding is urgently needed, said the person, who wasn’t authorized to publicly discuss the information. Energy officials made the case that any interruption in the supply of enriched Russian uranium could cause operational disruptions at commercial nuclear reactors, the person said. US nuclear energy industry participants have also been briefed on the proposal, said a second person familiar with the details. The plan requires approval from Congress.
The proposal aims to spur development of more domestic enrichment and other steps needed to turn uranium into reactor fuel, the person said. It would create a government buyer directly purchasing enriched uranium, including the type used in a new breed of advanced reactors now under development.
Still, it won’t be easy for the US to jump-start the domestic uranium industry. The country has only one remaining commercial enrichment facility -- a New Mexico plant owned by Urenco Ltd., a British-German-Dutch consortium.
Uranium Shares Surge
The Global X Uranium ETF, an exchange-traded fund focused on the industry, jumped as much as 7.4% to its highest intraday price in a month on the news. Shares of uranium miners including Cameco Corp. and Energy Fuels Inc. soared along with nuclear fuel provider Centrus Energy Corp.
The talks come as the Biden administration contemplates slapping sanctions on enriched uranium imports from Russia in response to the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine while considering prospects that Russia could also decide to halt imports. Russia accounted for 16.5% of the uranium imported into the US in 2020 and 23% of the enriched uranium needed to power US commercial nuclear reactors.
The Energy Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has called the US reliance on Russian imports a “vulnerability” for national and economic security, while drawing attention to the fact that US enrichment capacity has waned in part because of competition from state-subsidized sources.
Read more: Energy Chief Asks Manchin for Domestic Uranium Enrichment Funds
The proposal dovetails with legislation introduced earlier this year by Senator Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who serves as a key swing vote, and Senator Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, that would authorize billions of dollars in funding to increase the country’s domestic uranium enrichment capabilities. Other congressional backers of expanding US enrichment capabilities include Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who serves as the top GOP member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Companies that could benefit from such a plan include Centrus Energy, the Bethesda, Maryland-based firm that is building an enrichment facility in Ohio, and ConverDyn, a joint venture between Honeywell International Inc. and General Atomics that provides uranium conversion services.
<<<
---
Nice new board gfc. IMO, Nuclear makes mores since the wind or solar. Those Advanced Small Modular Reactors sound interesting!!!!!!!
NuScale Power (SMR) - >>> Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs
Office of Nuclear Energy
Office of Nuclear Energy Reactor Technologies Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
These advanced reactors, envisioned to vary in size from tens of megawatts up to hundreds of megawatts, can be used for power generation, process heat, desalination, or other industrial uses.
Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are a key part of the Department’s goal to develop safe, clean, and affordable nuclear power options. The advanced SMRs currently under development in the United States represent a variety of sizes, technology options, capabilities, and deployment scenarios. These advanced reactors, envisioned to vary in size from tens of megawatts up to hundreds of megawatts, can be used for power generation, process heat, desalination, or other industrial uses. SMR designs may employ light water as a coolant or other non-light water coolants such as a gas, liquid metal, or molten salt.
Advanced SMRs offer many advantages, such as relatively small physical footprints, reduced capital investment, ability to be sited in locations not possible for larger nuclear plants, and provisions for incremental power additions. SMRs also offer distinct safeguards, security and nonproliferation advantages.
The Department has long recognized the transformational value that advanced SMRs can provide to the nation’s economic, energy security, and environmental outlook. Accordingly, the Department has provided substantial support to the development of light water-cooled SMRs, which are under licensing review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and will likely be deployed in the late 2020s to early 2030s. The Department is also interested in the development of SMRs that use nontraditional coolants such as liquid metals, salts, and gases for the potential safety, operational, and economic benefits they offer.
Advanced SMR R&D Program
Building on the successes of the SMR Licensing Technical Support (LTS) program, the Advanced SMR R&D program was initiated in FY2019 and supports research, development, and deployment activities to accelerate the availability of U.S.-based SMR technologies into domestic and international markets. Significant technology development and licensing risks remain in bringing advanced SMR designs to market and government support is required to achieve domestic deployment of SMRs by the late 2020s or early 2030s. Through this program, the Department has partnered with NuScale Power and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) to demonstrate a first-of-a-kind reactor technology at the Idaho National Laboratory this decade. Through these efforts, the Department will provide broad benefits to other domestic reactor developers by resolving many technical and licensing issues that are generic to SMR technologies, while promoting U.S. energy independence, energy dominance, and electricity grid resilience, and assuring that there is a future supply of clean, reliable baseload power.
U.S. Industry Opportunities for Advanced Nuclear Technology Development
The Department issued a multi-year cost-shared funding opportunity (U.S. Industry Opportunities for Advanced Nuclear Technology Development, DE-FOA-0001817) in 2018 to support innovative, domestic nuclear industry-driven concepts that have high potential to improve the overall economic outlook for nuclear power in the United States. This funding opportunity will enable the development of existing, new, and next-generation reactor designs, including SMR technologies.
The scope of the funding opportunity is very broad and solicits activities involved in finalizing the most mature SMR designs; developing manufacturing capabilities and techniques to improve cost and efficiency of nuclear builds; developing plant structures, systems, components, and control systems; addressing regulatory issues; and other technical needs identified by industry. The funding opportunity will provide awards sized and tailored to address a range of technical and regulatory issues impeding the progress of advanced reactor development. Read more on the FOA. Also, see the awards that have been selected to date.
<<<
---
>>> Uranium Stocks: 5 Biggest Companies in 2023
Uranium Investing News
by Melissa Pistilli
Jan. 24, 2023
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/energy-investing/uranium-investing/largest-uranium-companies/
What are the largest uranium companies in the world by market cap? We run through the biggest firms producing and exploring for the nuclear fuel.
Uranium is an important energy sector commodity, and its rising value has attracted investor interest.
2023 has already seen uranium prices briefly push past the important US$50 per pound level, and experts are optimistic about the year ahead. With demand set to increase as clean energy gains traction and supply security becomes increasingly important, many market watchers are calling for much higher prices, as well as share price gains for uranium stocks.
With uranium's bright future in mind, it's worth looking at the world's leading uranium miners. The list below lays out the five largest uranium companies by market cap. All data was current as of January 11, 2023.
1. BHP (NYSE:BHP,ASX:BHP,LSE:BHP)
Market cap: US$166.74 billion
BHP's Olympic Dam mine in Australia is one of the largest uranium deposits in the world. Although copper is the primary resource mined at Olympic Dam, the asset also hosts uranium, gold and silver.
After completing a comprehensive study, the major miner scrapped plans for a brownfields expansion at Olympic Dam in late 2020. Citing the complexity of the copper deposit, BHP instead has opted to focus on "targeted debottlenecking investments, plant upgrades and modernization of infrastructure" at the Australian property.
In the company's 2022 fiscal year, uranium output from the Olympic Dam totaled 2.4 million metric tons (MT) of uranium oxide concentrate, a decrease of 892,000 MT from the previous year's uranium production.
Currently, BHP is looking for new opportunities to add to its resource profile. One area of interest for the company is Oak Dam in South Australia, at which high-grade copper, gold, silver and uranium mineralization has been identified. BHP is currently conducting resource definition drilling at the site.
2. Cameco (NYSE:CCJ,TSX:CCO)
Market cap: US$10.99 billion
Cameco's key operations include a 50 percent stake in Saskatchewan-based Cigar Lake, which is considered the most prolific uranium mine in the world. The company also has a 70 percent stake in the McArthur River mine and an 83 percent interest in the Key Lake mill, both located in the province's Athabasca Basin, which is a well-known uranium jurisdiction.
While Cameco is a well-known uranium producer, it has faced challenges in recent years. Like many companies, it took a hit during COVID-19, temporarily shutting down production at Cigar Lake in 2020.
Back in 2018, Cameco shuttered McArthur River and Key Lake due to weak uranium prices. The closures reduced Cameco's uranium supply dramatically from 23.8 million pounds in 2017 to 9.2 million pounds in 2018. In early 2022, Cameco announced that improving uranium prices had encouraged management to bring the operation back online. The first pounds of uranium ore from the newly reopened McArthur River mine were milled and packaged at the Key Lake mill in November 2022. The company plans to produce 15 million pounds of uranium per year from these operations by 2024, which is 40 percent below its annual licensed capacity.
In the US, Cameco owns the Smith Ranch-Highland operation in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, as well as the Crow Butte operation in Nebraska; production was curtailed at both as of 2016. Additionally, Cameco has a 40 percent stake in the Inkai mine in Kazakhstan.
3. NexGen Energy (NYSE:NXE,TSX:NXE,ASX:NXG)
Market cap: US$2.23 billion
Uranium exploration and development company NexGen Energy is focused on projects in Canada's Athabasca Basin. Its main property is Rook I, which hosts a number of discoveries, including Arrow and South Arrow. NexGen also holds a 51 percent interest in exploration-stage company IsoEnergy (TSXV:ISO,OTCQX:ISENF).
In late 2021, NexGen inked an engineering, procurement and construction management contract for Rook I's front-end engineering design stage. This work follows the completion of the feasibility study, and will further prepare the project for construction.
In December 2022, the company announced the receipt of federal technical and public review comments on its draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and said it would soon be submitting the final EIS and licensing application.
“The Feasibility Study outlines an initial 11 year mine capable of producing 29 Mlbs U308 per annum (first 5 years), making it the largest and lowest cost uranium mine in the world,” according to the company.
4. Uranium Energy (NYSEAMERICAN:UEC)
Market cap: US$1.46 billion
Uranium Energy has two production-ready, in-situ recovery (ISR) hub-and-spoke platforms in South Texas and Wyoming that include fully licensed and operational processing capacity at the Hobson and Irigaray plants. The company also has seven US-based ISR uranium projects with all of their major permits in place.
Uranium Energy made a number of strategic acquisitions in 2022, including UEX in August and the development-stage Roughrider uranium project from Rio Tinto (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO) in October.
The company began purchasing physical uranium in March 2021, and as of its latest purchase in April 2022, it had amassed an inventory of 5 million pounds of US-warehoused physical uranium. In December 2022, Uranium Energy won an award from the US Department of Energy to supply 300,000 pounds of U3O8 at a price of US$59.50 per pound to the strategic uranium reserve.
5. Energy Fuels (NYSEAMERICAN:UUUU,TSX:EFR)
Market cap: US$1.08 billion
The largest producer of uranium in the US, Energy Fuels provides major nuclear power plants with uranium from its White Mesa mill in Utah, the country's only conventional uranium mill. The mill has a licensed capacity of over 8 million pounds of U3O8 per year.
Energy Fuels is the only uranium producer with both conventional and ISR production in the US. The company owns the Nichols Ranch ISR project in Wyoming and the Alta Mesa ISR project in Texas, both of which are currently on standby. The Nichols Ranch ISR project has a licensed capacity of 2 million pounds of U3O8 per year. Energy Fuels announced a definitive agreement to sell its Alta Mesa ISR project to enCore Energy (TSXV:EU,NYSEAMERICAN:EU) in November 2022.
Additionally, the company has one of the largest S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 compliant uranium resource portfolios in the country. This includes a pipeline of uranium and uranium-vanadium mining projects on standby and in various stages of permitting and development. In April 2022, Energy Fuels began partial commercial-scale rare earth elements separation at its White Mesa mill.
The US Department of Defense awarded Energy Fuels a strategic uranium reserve contract to sell US$18.5 million of uranium concentrates to the US government in December 2022.
<<<
---
>>> BWX Technologies, Inc. (BWXT) manufactures and sells nuclear components in the United States, Canada, and internationally. It operates through Government Operations and Commercial Operations segments. The Government Operations segment designs and manufactures naval nuclear components, reactors, and nuclear fuel; undertakes fabrication activities for missile launch tubes for U.S. Navy submarines; and supplies proprietary and sole-source valves, manifolds, and fittings to naval and commercial shipping customers. This segment also involved in manufacture of close-tolerance and equipment for nuclear applications; and converts Cold War-era government stockpiles of high-enriched uranium, as well as receives, stores, characterizes, dissolves, recovers, and purifies uranium-bearing materials; supplies research reactor fuel elements for colleges, universities, and national laboratories; and components for defense applications. The Commercial Operations segment designs and manufactures commercial nuclear steam generators, heat exchangers, pressure vessels, and reactor components; and other auxiliary equipment, including containers for the storage of nuclear fuel and other high-level nuclear waste. It also offers nuclear fuel, fuel handling systems, tooling delivery systems, nuclear grade materials, and precisely machined components, as well as related services for CANDU nuclear power plants; in-plant inspection, maintenance, and modification services, as well as non-destructive examination and tooling/repair solutions; and medical radioisotopes, radiopharmaceuticals, and medical devices. The company was formerly known as The Babcock & Wilcox Company and changed its name to BWX Technologies, Inc. in June 2015. BWX Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1867 and is headquartered in Lynchburg, Virginia.
<<<
---
>>> A new nuclear reactor in the US started up last week — the country's first in nearly 7 years. Here are 3 simple ways to invest in the space
MoneyWise
by Jing Pan
March 14, 2023
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-reactor-us-started-last-120000409.html
Nuclear power has its pros and cons. Right now, the U.S. seems to be embracing its advantages.
Earlier this week, Georgia Power announced that its Vogtle Unit 3 reactor has safely reached 'initial criticality.'
“A reactor achieves criticality when the nuclear fission reaction becomes self-sustaining,” the company said in a statement. “Achieving initial criticality is necessary to continue the startup of the Unit in order to generate sufficient heat for the production of electricity.”
Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesperson Scott Burnell told CNBC that this marked the first nuclear reactor to achieve initial criticality since May 2016.
Georgia Power expects Vogtle Unit 3 to be fully in service in May or June this year.
The company’s CEO said that the unit should be able to produce “clean and emission-free energy for the next 60 to 80 years.”
Given the global energy crisis, more nuclear reactors could come online. So for savvy investors, it might be a good time to check out some nuclear energy stocks. Here’s a look at two that Wall Street analysts like — and another method to gain exposure if you don’t want to pick winners and losers.
Cameco
Uranium is the mostly widely used fuel by nuclear power plants. Therefore Cameco (CCJ) — a major uranium producer — is well-positioned if nuclear power becomes a more significant source of electricity production.
Cameco operates uranium mines in Canada, the U.S., and Kazakhstan. The business is backed by long-term contracts with customers around the world, averaging 21 million pounds per year over the next five years in sales.
Other than mining uranium, Cameco also provides fuel services to nuclear power plants.
In 2022, the company’s revenue grew 27%.
Although Cameco is headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, its shares trade on both the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange.
Raymond James analyst Brian MacArthur has an ‘outperform’ rating on Cameco’s Canadian-listed shares and recently raised the price target to C$48 — roughly 34% above where the stock sits today.
NuScale Power
NuScale Power (SMR) develops small modular nuclear power reactors for power generation.
The business started out as a university research project in 2002. In 2020, it became the first company to have its small modular reactor design approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NuScale Power has several projects planned ahead. Notably, it will build a six-module plant at the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls that will generate 462 megawatts of carbon-free electricity. The plant is expected to be fully operational by 2030.
Guggenheim analyst Shahriar Pourreza has a ‘buy’ rating on Nuscale Power and a price target of $18. Since the stock trades at around $10.10 today, the price target implies a potential upside of 78%.
ETFs
Exchange-traded funds have been gaining popularity in recent years. You can think of an ETF as a portfolio of stocks. And because ETFs trade on major exchanges, it’s very convenient for investors to buy and sell them.
You can use ETFs to tap into the nuclear energy sector, too.
For instance, the VanEck Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF (NLR) is an ETF that tracks the performance of companies involved in uranium mining, the construction, engineering and maintenance of nuclear power facilities, the production of electricity from nuclear sources, and providing equipment and services to the nuclear power industry. The fund currently holds 24 stocks.
Then there’s also the Global X Uranium ETF (URA), a targeted play on uranium mining. The fund provides exposure to companies involved in uranium mining and the production of nuclear components. It currently has 47 holdings.
<<<
---
Name | Symbol | % Assets |
---|---|---|
Constellation Energy Corp | CEG | 8.28% |
Public Service Enterprise Group Inc | PEG | 7.90% |
Cameco Corp | CCO | 7.27% |
PG&E Corp | PCG | 7.07% |
Endesa SA | ELE | 5.10% |
Fortum Oyj | FORTUM | 5.01% |
Paladin Energy Ltd | PDN | 4.90% |
NexGen Energy Ltd | NXE | 4.81% |
BWX Technologies Inc | BWXT | 4.72% |
Name | Symbol | % Assets |
---|---|---|
Cameco Corp | CCO | 26.08% |
Sprott Physical Uranium Trust Units | U.UN | 9.48% |
NexGen Energy Ltd | NXE | 6.08% |
National Atomic Co Kazatomprom JSC ADR | KAP | 5.38% |
Uranium Energy Corp | UEC | 4.02% |
Paladin Energy Ltd | PDN | 3.96% |
Denison Mines Corp | DML | 3.28% |
Yellow Cake PLC Ordinary Shares | YCA | 3.12% |
Energy Fuels Inc | EFR | 3.04% |
ITOCHU Corp | 8001 | 2.56% |
Name | Symbol | % Assets |
---|---|---|
Cameco Corp | CCO | 18.25% |
National Atomic Co Kazatomprom JSC ADR | KAP | 12.97% |
Sprott Physical Uranium Trust Units | U.UN | 12.65% |
NexGen Energy Ltd | NXE | 5.38% |
Denison Mines Corp | DML | 5.04% |
Paladin Energy Ltd | PDN | 4.81% |
Energy Fuels Inc | EFR | 4.78% |
Yellow Cake PLC Ordinary Shares | YCA | 4.46% |
Uranium Energy Corp | UEC | 4.44% |
Boss Energy Ltd | BOE | 4.08% |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |