Uran -- Märkte und Informationen

bg bh

der erste us pensionsfond ist in sput eingestiegen.
https://www.pionline.com/searc…nium-private-equity-funds

doug casey, natürlich sind die besprochenen punkte nicht neu, aber nochmals eine zusammenfassung
https://internationalman.com/a…normous-upside-potential/

Zitat von https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-why-uranium-has-enormous-upside-potential/

International Man: You and your readers have made enormous profits in uranium in the past. Tell us about some of your biggest wins.
Doug Casey: I wrote a very long and thorough article on uranium and nuclear power in October 1998 for my newsletter, where I recommended several uranium stocks. About two years later, they all exploded upwards in value and kept running.
At that time, uranium was selling for $10 or $12 a pound. But it cost $20 to $25 a pound to mine a pound of U308. It was obvious that the price had to go up, or over 400 nuclear power plants around the world would have to shut down, and with them, about 10% of the world’s electrical power.
The market went up from there and peaked in 2007 at $140 a pound. When I wrote that article in 1998, there were only a half-dozen uranium mining companies in the world. By the time the market peaked, there were 500 companies that claimed to be uranium miners, but the only uranium that almost any of them had was a word printed on their share certificates.
One of the best on my list was Paladin Resources, which went from 10 cents to $10. But many, many companies went up between 10 and 50 times.
Resource companies—especially the explorers and developers, as opposed to producers—are the most volatile class of stocks in the world. That’s partly because their market caps are very small; just a little buying or selling can move them tremendously. In today’s world, most people know nothing about mining, but they believe it’s dirty and destroys “the ecology.” The public thinks of mining as a 19th-century choo choo train-type business. And it’s true that it’s a very tough business—huge upfront capital costs, constant problems with native groups, unpredictable commodity prices, and a score of other problems.
But cyclically, the public realizes that without mined elements, civilization itself would cease to exist—no tools, no cars, no computers, not even knives and forks. Mining is a business that keeps the world from reverting to the Stone Age. Then, billions of dollars flow into just a few tiny companies. It can happen to companies mining any of the many hundreds of elements and compounds. Gold is, of course, the best known of them.
When the market turns to gold stocks, it’s like trying to force the contents of Hoover Dam through a garden hose. In the case of uranium stocks, however, it’s more like a soda straw. It’s a very, very small market.
Wild imbalances in supply and demand, accompanied by equally wild swings in price, often surprise people who aren’t familiar with the resource business. But it is the very nature of the beast, and it is one of the reasons speculating in it can be so profitable—if your timing is good.
It’s easiest to raise the money needed to discover deposits and build mines when prices are high because that’s when the typical investor is willing to finance companies, thinking he’ll make a killing. Of course, the industry then takes advantage of that window, resulting in an immense amount of new capacity.
Meanwhile, the same high prices that encourage new production also discourage consumption. However, that’s only marginally true with uranium because, as I’ve said, the cost of fuel is trivial to the overall costs of producing power. This means by the time the new product hits the market, after a time lag of several years, prices have collapsed—as have the share prices of surviving companies.
That is when professionals who understand the way these things work open up their checkbooks because the resource business—oil, precious metals, grains, uranium, you name it—is as cyclical as the seasons of the year. It’s just that each commodity has its own peculiarities.
The uranium market, like that of most metals, is both cyclical and volatile. Like gold, it’s a very political metal. It generates lots of emotion. That can be very good for the skilled speculator. The time to buy is when prices are low, which is exactly when most people are afraid to act.
International Man: How does the setup for uranium today compare to other bull markets?
Doug Casey: Well, it’s a redux of what happened in the last bull market. Right now, as we speak, uranium is trading for about $40 a pound. But it typically costs $60 a pound to mine uranium today, so there’s very little uranium exploration. Or production. Inventories are being depleted.
No new deposits are being put into production. But unless you want the lights turned off, since about 20% of American and 10% of the world’s power generation comes from nuclear, more uranium must be mined to feed the nuclear power plants.
Now let’s look at the Third World. Most of the new nuclear plants being built today are in China and India. And both of those countries are building dozens of them with scores more on the drawing board. The demand for uranium is going up in both the short term and the long term. This bull market in uranium should be as good as the last one. I own a lot of uranium stocks for that reason.
International Man: What effect will the ESG narrative have on uranium?
Doug Casey: The ESG narrative itself is not just counterproductive. It’s destructive, unnecessary nonsense.
That said, the ESG meme has definitely taken over the psyches of the average investor and the average fund manager. Everybody thinks that wind and solar are the wave of the future. They’re not—except for specialized applications in specific places. They’re definitely not for baseload power.
Reality is going to draw massive attention to uranium, especially since a lot of progress is being made towards developing fourth- and fifth-generation-style reactors, which will make uranium more important and usable than ever. New generations of reactors will solve the real and imagined problems brought up by the ESG people. The real problem is that they won’t solve people’s psychological problems—namely, that the wokesters promoting all this nonsense simply hate other people. But that’s another story.
Still, these people might decide that uranium is great simply because they irrationally hate oil and coal so much. They’ll find an excuse to rationalize and justify their dislike for nuclear in the past. The previous enemies of uranium may turn out to be its friends.
The bottom line is that I expect the building bull market in uranium to be at least as good as the last one.
International Man: If even the worst uranium companies delivered 20–1 returns in the last bull market, what kind of upside potential do you see now?
Doug Casey: Huge upside potential. Uranium stocks are just now starting their recovery from a deep bear market that’s lasted over a decade. There’s explosive upside for uranium companies.
Then, as Wall Street belatedly reacquaints itself with uranium, companies will get ridiculously inflated value for assets which few care about today. It’s an eternal cycle and quite predictable.

Alles anzeigen

bg bh

Primary Production and Inventories
When most people think of spot market supply, they focus on two sources – primary production and inventories. Primary production is the simplest source of supply in the market to understand and is often used to estimate market depth. While the majority of uranium production over time has been sold via mid- and long-term contracts, there will always be a certain amount of material which is sold into the spot market. Sellers have a variety of motivations – they may be selling uranium produced as a by-product of a broader mining operation which makes them price insensitive, sellers may outsource marketing to a trading organization and be less price focused, they may be selling on behalf of an organization that is not a traditional market participant (for example, a government’s share of production in a mine). Regardless of motivation, you can think of this supply as relatively inelastic and predictable (i.e., it doesn’t fluctuate based on prices or which market participants are buying). While some portion of Sprott’s purchases have inevitably been from this category, it is unlikely to explain the majority of recent volumes.
Inventories are somewhat different and harder to estimate. For most utilities, inventories can be divided into strategic and non-strategic, with the latter being often referred to as discretionary. Price can have a significant impact on inventory management and this inventory buying or selling will help drive the spot market. Given the opaque nature of the market, it is impossible to tell exactly how inventory management has changed as a result of the recent move in prices. A bearish take would be to assume that as prices have risen from $25 to $45, market participants have sold down inventory to take advantage of higher prices. While we can’t rule that out entirely, we don’t think it’s been a big portion of recent spot supply – lets walk through why.
In many markets inventory management is a countercyclical element which helps smooth out the price cycle. This is intuitive – why not stock up on something you need while prices are low and draw down that inventory which prices are high? If history is any guide, inventory management for uranium is actually a procyclical factor. Without re-hashing much uranium 101 – compared with other electricity generation options, fuel (uranium) is a relatively small portion of your total energy cost for nuclear power. However, nuclear power plants are meant to run at high capacity-factors, meaning that fuel related outages are very costly for a utility. Because of this, fuel buyers have historically increased inventories when they are nervous about securing supply even if it means they are doing so at higher prices. Another way to think of this - the value of uranium is driven more by availability than by price (i.e., it is a scarcity driven procurement cycle, not a price driven one) so inventory management typically adds volatility to a price cycle rather than dampening it. An overly simplistic analogy – you may not stockpile bottled water in your basement every day, but if a hurricane was coming you likely would. When you buy water ahead of that storm you are doing so out of necessity – almost regardless of price, you cannot run out of water. At these times, scarcity (or perceived scarcity) drives procurement, rather than price…
OK, fine but how are inventories impacting today’s market?!?
If you go down the list of market participants, we can’t find a smoking gun. First, producer inventories are at or near cycle lows and several producers are spot market buyers to replace production currently on care & maintenance. At the utility level, while U.S. and European inventories remain slightly above historical averages, we would make two observations – first, while regional aggregates are often reported, inventory levels can differ drastically by utility. We know at least one fuel buyer who was proactive during the bear market and is covered out to the end of this decade while we know several others who will be forced into the market in the near future to replenish fuel requirements in 2022 and 2023. Second – we’d remind readers that this will never be a low inventory, just in time market. Most utilities will at bear minimum want one core reload going through the fuel cycle at any given time (most plants are running 18-month cycles so that’s ~1.5 years of inventory) and in many places a minimum level of inventory is required from a regulatory standpoint. More broadly, our high touch conversations with utilities and traders show no indication that western utilities have used the price move to trim inventories – if anything we are hearing they are more likely to increase discretionary purchases as a result of the move.
However, there are two large pools of inventory that bears always reference as potential market overhangs – Japan and China.
I won’t spend too much time on the history behind Japanese inventories but suffice to say they are well in excess of historical levels. After Fukushima, Japanese utilities kept taking delivery of very highly priced contracted material despite having the majority of reactors offline for the decade. This resulted in an inventory of approximately 100mmlbs. Over time small amounts of Japanese inventory have found their way into the market periodically through traders but the amounts have not been significant. The majority of inventory is held at cost on the balance sheets of Japanese utilities rather than marked to market meaning that a sale would lead to a loss recognition (potentially impacting leverage requirements). Additionally, most of these utilities still have reactors in some stage of re-permitting and/or restart. They realize that taking significant losses on fuel sales while lobbying for government support and social license is unlikely to be a winning strategy. Finally – at the government level we continue to see a recommitment to long term energy targets which include nuclear energy in Japan and view their alternatives as limited. While some material may become more mobile at significantly higher prices (a large portion of contracted material was purchased in the $80-120 range), we find it unlikely that Japanese utilities who have owned this material for a decade will suddenly about face when prices have risen $15-20 and our market intelligence has not pointed to the Japanese as sellers.
China is an interesting topic. The Chinese are in the process of the most successful nuclear buildout of all time. After a multi-year newbuild hiatus as the country transitioned to a new generation of reactors, the CCP recommitted to a national build program centered on domesticated reactor technology and continued investment into their nuclear fuel cycle. While Chinese inventories may seem large when compared to current consumption levels, they are actually quite small in relation to the country’s newbuild plan.

[Blockierte Grafik: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e4186036224906dda452b93/6a80ce82-eff5-4dd8-bcee-a26dd55ccb43/China.jpg?format=1000w]

To us, China’s long-term plan for nuclear has as much to do with energy security as it does with decarbonization. Those outside the industry often forget that France’s nuclear buildout in the 1970’s was driven by the energy crisis rather than carbon concerns. For a government largely dependent on energy imports, the ability to stockpile 5+ years of fuel onsite for relatively low costs is a key nuclear selling point for the Chinese.
We largely view current Chinese inventory levels as strategic in nature and unlikely to be sold into a rising market. This is all the more important given the market’s adverse reaction to the recent YellowCake PLC capital raise. To briefly summarize, YellowCake PLC recently raised $150mm to buy 3 million pounds of uranium, 1 million pounds from Kazatomprom and 2 million pounds from Curzon Uranium Limited (a well-known uranium trading company). The market was spooked by the following line:
“Curzon is sourcing the U3O8 from CGN Global Uranium Limited ("CGN"), who has agreed to deliver the U3O8 directly to the Company's account at Cameco's Port Hope / Blind River facility, with delivery of all the U3O8 purchased from Curzon to take place before the end of November 2021”
Many market participants viewed this as evidence that the Chinese were willing to sell material into the market and were making a call on uranium prices. While the Chinese have done exactly that with other commodities in recent times in an effort to cap commodity inflation, we don’t believe that is what happened in this case. Our view is that these pounds were likely sourced via a pull forward of a carry trade already in place in the market (more on that below). While we often see the Chinese in the market as buyers and sellers, we attribute most of that activity to their trading businesses and have seen no evidence of a willingness to draw down national inventories, much less sell them. In fact, just last week Kazatomprom and Chinese announced a series of term contracts – the first time the Chinese have entered the term market in years and a sign they are buyers rather than sellers today.

bg bh

You Say You Want A Revolution… Spot, #SPUT & The Turning of a Cycle

sehr lesenswert zum Uranium Market

Conclusions

• First – we have been bullish the uranium story for some time and remain so – however, we believe understanding market nuances will be more important going forward (while the fundamentals have drastically improved over the past two years, so has the amount of snakeoil being sold to investors).
• The rise of Sprott is undoubtedly positive for the uranium market – we believe producers are the primary beneficiaries of this development in the short term.
• Spot market dynamics are complex and can be difficult for investors to understand. Do not assume that material availability in spot is a bad thing – in the end the uranium market is a zero-sum game with pounds produced, consumed and (now) sequestered. The more this happens, the tighter the market now and in the future will be.
• Utilities should pay attention to how spot market demand may be changing the balance of forward coverage and supply. Do not assume that material on offer today is a sign that future prices will not increase as producer incentives shift.
• While forward contract book replenishment will mean stronger producers through this cycle, we also believe that high quality development projects will see significantly higher through-cycle pricing than they would without Sprott. We continue to think that 4th quartile cost curve assets and exploration “fliers” are a fool’s errand and remain skeptical of high cost or low-quality stories (of which there are many).

jetzt ist der ganz artikel aus post #482 zugänglich(ohne copyrightbreach)

You Say You Want A Revolution… Spot, #SPUT & The Turning of a Cycle
https://www.segracapital.com/c…say-you-want-a-revolution

Zitat

Conclusions
[*]First – we have been bullish the uranium story for some time and remain so – however, we believe understanding market nuances will be more important going forward (while the fundamentals have drastically improved over the past two years, so has the amount of snakeoil being sold to investors).
[*]The rise of Sprott is undoubtedly positive for the uranium market – we believe producers are the primary beneficiaries of this development in the short term.
[*]Spot market dynamics are complex and can be difficult for investors to understand. Do not assume that material availability in spot is a bad thing – in the end the uranium market is a zero-sum game with pounds produced, consumed and (now) sequestered. The more this happens, the tighter the market now and in the future will be.
[*]Utilities should pay attention to how spot market demand may be changing the balance of forward coverage and supply. Do not assume that material on offer today is a sign that future prices will not increase as producer incentives shift.
[*]While forward contract book replenishment will mean stronger producers through this cycle, we also believe that high quality development projects will see significantly higher through-cycle pricing than they would without Sprott. We continue to think that 4th quartile cost curve assets and exploration “fliers” are a fool’s errand and remain skeptical of high cost or low-quality stories (of which there are many).
[/list]

Alles anzeigen

bg bh

Indonesia edging towards the nuclear option
Government plans call to replace coal plants with nuclear reactors as questions remain about viability of solar, wind and geothermal

JAKARTA – Nuclear is a notable absentee from the list of renewables in Indonesian power utility Perusahaan Listrik Negara’s (PLN) latest plan for the next decade, but flip the page to the country’s ambitious 2060 zero-carbon scenario and it figures prominently after 2035.
For nuclear exponent Bob Effendi, the door is now irrevocably open. “The political decision has been made with no fanfare,” he asserts, pointing to the pending New and Renewable Energy Bill, where the “new” stands for nuclear. “It can’t be reversed (by any future administration).”
The only question, he says, is when it will happen, with Ministry of Mines and Energy officials reportedly divided between those who favor nuclear power sooner (2030-35) and those who prefer it later (2040-45).
Seven articles in the new legislation deal with nuclear power, including provisions for a policy-making Nuclear Power Plant Advisory Council and also for the government establishing a site to sustainably store radioactive waste.
PLN and Effendi’s US-based ThorCon International Pte Ltd have already got the go-ahead to build an experimental 50MW thorium-powered molten salt reactor on Bangka Island, south of Singapore, which is expected to be operational by 2028.
At this early point, PLN plans call for the first nuclear plant to start operating in 2040, the same year the utility wants to begin decommissioning its super-critical coal plants and applying carbon, capture, usage and storage (CCUS) technology to the remaining stations.
Effendi believes nuclear can make a timely contribution to meeting emission targets with the revival of the molten salt reactor, a technology that was abandoned in the 1970s, but has now taken on new relevance, especially because it is immune to meltdowns.
A 500MW prototype of what he calls the “android of energy,” built in parts in a South Korean shipyard and transported directly to a prepared site, would cost about US$1.2 billion. But he claims future plants would carry a less expensive price tag.

...

https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/…wards-the-nuclear-option/

___

potentieller smr ausbau bis 2035 - schätzung global zwischen 65-85 gw

bg bh

In Zukunft möchte ich mich verstärkt darauf beschränken, nur noch in die Rohstoffe selbst, aber nicht in die dazugehörigen Aktien zu investieren. Der Grund ist, dass ich befürchte, dass beim anstehenden Crash alle Werte dramatisch unter die Räder kommen. Weiß jemand, bei welchem Broker man den SPUT kaufen kann? Bei meinem geht es nicht.

Zitat von Euroliebhaber

In Zukunft möchte ich mich verstärkt darauf beschränken, nur noch in die Rohstoffe selbst, aber nicht in die dazugehörigen Aktien zu investieren. Der Grund ist, dass ich befürchte, dass beim anstehenden Crash alle Werte dramatisch unter die Räder kommen. Weiß jemand, bei welchem Broker man den SPUT kaufen kann? Bei meinem geht es nicht.

Wüsste ich auch gern .

Ich habe letztens 100 Stück über Consors direkt an der Börse Toronto zugekauft.
War überhaupt kein Problem.

Habe aber auch noch mehrere hundert Stück Altbestand aus der UPC-Umwandlung. Die waren ja seinerzeit auch an deutschen Börsen handelbar. Wenn ich die in die Verkaufsmaske eingebe, wird mir zwar als deutscher Broker auch die Baaderbank angezeigt, aber keine Kurse. Verkauf über deutsche Börsen wird überhaupt nicht offeriert.
Wenn ich sie in Toronto eingebe, bekomme ich einen Warnhinweis, dass die Aktien erst umgelagert werden müssen, was in Einzelfällen problematisch sein könnte. Vielleicht ist das auch nur ein Hinweis von Consors um sich abzusichern, obwohl es in der Regel ohne Probleme geht Na ja, im Moment will ich sie auch nicht verkaufen.

Hat jemand schon mal Sprott Phys. Uranium verkauft, die aus der Umwandlung stammten??

Kuppy's Happy Hour ft. Mike Alkin - The bear case for uranium

UN hails nuclear as the lowest carbon electricity source
Nuclear power generates less carbon dioxide emissions over its lifecycle than any other electricity source, according to a new report

The United Nations has today recognised nuclear power as the lowest carbon electricity source.
A new report by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) that examined the lifecycle carbon produced by all technologies suggests that nuclear power generates less carbon dioxide emissions over its lifecycle than any other electricity source.
The UNECE found that nuclear has the lowest carbon footprint, measured in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh of electricity than any other technology.
The authors of the report also claim nuclear have the lowest lifecycle land use, the lowest lifecycle mineral and metal requirements of all the clean technologies examined.
They note that both nuclear and renewable energy sources are all zero-carbon during the generation but every electricity source produces some carbon dioxide at various stages, including construction, operation and decommissioning.
Listen to what Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said during COP26 in Glasgow when he was asked whether he believes that the nuclear’s time has finally come.

bg bh

Die Nachricht des Tages

Sprott erhöht die Units des SPUT von 1,3 Mrd. auf 3,5 Mrd. damit kann jede Menge mehr Uran dem Markt entzogen werden.

... also wird der Korrekturmodus der Uranier zeitnah beendet sein.

Zur Zeit korrigieren ja alle etwas. Zeit zum nachlegen

Zitat von LieschenMueller

... also wird der Korrekturmodus der Uranier zeitnah beendet sein.

Kaum schreibst du es, schon schießt Kazatomprom in die Höhe

Was ??? - Jo!!!

der erste esg bond für kernkraft!

Bruce Power Issues the First Green Bond for Nuclear Power

Canadian nuclear generator Bruce Power announced today the issuance of $500 million in green bonds, a global first for nuclear power, with proceeds aimed at financing or re-financing investments associated with life extension and increasing output of existing units.
The place of nuclear power within a clean energy future remains controversial. While nuclear has substantial and proven capability to provide abundant amounts of carbon-free energy, it is unclear whether nuclear energy can be considered a sustainable source of power, considering the many well-known issues surrounding its use, including radioactive waste management issues, uranium mining concerns, and the potential for catastrophic accidents, among others.

Mike Rencheck, Bruce Power’s President and CEO, said:
Formed in 2001, Bruce Power is a Canadian-owned partnership of TC Energy, OntarTC Energy, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Systems (OMERS), the Power Workers’ Union and The Society of United Professionals. The company has signed a long-term contract with the province of Ontario to refurbish six of its eight units, in order to provide carbon-free energy through 2064.
According to Bruce Power’s Green Financing Framework, proceeds from the offering will be used to help finance the company’s Life-Extension Program for the six units, with investments including component replacement, refurbishment and maintenance aimed at increasing the units’ operational life span and improving or maintaining operational safety.
Kevin Kelly, Bruce Power’s Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, said:
Rocco Rossi, President & CEO, Ontario Chamber of Commerce, added:

https://www.esgtoday.com/bruce…n-bond-for-nuclear-power/

_

Kazakhstan-based physical uranium fund begins operations

Kazakh national nuclear company Kazatomprom has signed a framework agreement with Genchi Global to invest in the newly established ANU Energy OEIC Limited physical uranium fund, meaning the fund can begin operations. Meanwhile, Kazatomprom has exercised an option to buy back uranium previously sold to Yellow Cake plc.





bg bh

Zitat von Blue Horseshoe

UN hails nuclear as the lowest carbon electricity source
Nuclear power generates less carbon dioxide emissions over its lifecycle than any other electricity source, according to a new report

hier gibt es den unece report: life cycle assessment of electricity generation options
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf

ein read lohnt, allerings sind es vollständig 107 seiten.

bg bh

Holtec International has finalised an agreement with Hyundai Engineering & Construction of South Korea for the turnkey supply of Holtec's SMR-160 small modular reactor (SMR) plant worldwide. Holtec is considering deploying the first SMR-160 at Oyster Creek in New Jersey, where it is currently in the process of decommissioning a former boiling water reactor.

--------

OP-ED: Wind and solar power won’t replace fossil fuels

Fortunately, nuclear power can

Many activists think that protests will persuade governments to shut down fossil fuel power plants and replace them with wind and solar power. Unfortunately, that will not happen. Cities demand continuous power. Most electric power is generated by burning fossil fuels, and is continuous. Wind and solar power, on the other hand, are both intermittent. Cities don’t want intermittent power.
If a utility owns a solar or wind installation, that installation typically produces power only 30% of the time. 70% of power supplied by the utility is “backup” power from a power plant which burns fossil fuels. That’s why huge investments in intermittent wind and solar power have not made CO2 emissions fall. Intermittent wind and solar power are effectively ensuring continued reliance on “backup” fossil fuel power.
It is possible to make solar power continuous; this requires adding expensive energy storage. An illuminating case study is the Andasol solar power installation in Spain, which stores solar energy as heat in tanks of molten salt. The stored energy is used to produce power at night. Continuous power from Andasol costs 31 cents per kWh. Using batteries for energy storage would be even more expensive, as batteries need to be replaced every few years. Most governments will not invest in continuous solar power because it costs too much (per kWh).
There are many different estimates of the cost of continuous power from a new nuclear power plant in the US; a small change in the interest rate has a huge impact on this cost, as a nuclear plant requires a very high investment of capital, and thus incurs very high interest expense. The cost per kWh of nuclear power is likely to be between 8 and 9.6 cents. This is not much more expensive than continuous power from the new Payra coal power plant, which will cost about 7 cents per kWh.
The choices before governments are simple. They are presently getting continuous power from coal and gas burning power plants, costing about 7 cents per kWh. Continuous solar power from a system like Andasol costs over four times as much, 31 cents per kWh. That’s why governments are opting for intermittent solar power (without any energy storage), which ensures that fossil fuels will continue to be burned as “backup” power. So how do we shut down fossil fuel power plants? The answer is to replace fossil fuel power plants with nuclear power plants. Continuous nuclear power costs between 8 and 9.6 cents per kWh, just slightly more than what governments are now paying for continuous power from fossil fuels. That’s why nuclear power can replace fossil fuel power plants, but solar power won’t. Continuous wind power would require even more energy storage than continuous solar power, because a wind farm might experience several days without much wind.
The most common argument against nuclear power is the fear of a disaster like Chernobyl. Many people are under the impression that Chernobyl and Fukushima “proved” that nuclear power is unsafe. However, those accidents happened because of specific design flaws which have been thoroughly studied, and which will not be repeated. Statistics show that nuclear power is safe (a quick google search will show you these statistics). We should be much more worried about fossil fuel power. Outdoor air pollution, mostly from burning fossil fuels, kills over 4 million people every year (according to WHO).
The other argument against nuclear power is the waste disposal problem. Radioactive waste from nuclear plants (used rods of solid uranium fuel) contains plutonium, which is radioactive for thousands of years. However, the uranium and plutonium in these used rods can be recycled (reprocessed) into new fuel rods; France has been doing this safely for decades.
The next generation of nuclear power plants will probably be molten salt reactors (MSRs). These will never experience the kind of accidents which were seen at Fukushima and Chernobyl. Those accidents occurred when reactors overheated. In molten salt reactors, the uranium fuel is dissolved in molten salt coolant. If the temperature of the reactor becomes slightly higher than normal, the molten salt will expand, stopping the nuclear chain reaction. So molten salt reactors simply can’t overheat. Molten salt reactors will also fission the plutonium they produce (transforming it into lighter elements), which means that their waste will only be radioactive for a few hundred years.
We need to get over our fear of nuclear power. We need to build nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuel power plants. If we don’t, it is just a matter of time before Bangladesh (and all other coastal regions) become permanently inundated by rising sea levels.

https://www.dhakatribune.com/o…on-t-replace-fossil-fuels

bg bh

Naja...der Kerl bläst die Klimatröte aber heftig!!!!

cu DL