Uran -- Märkte und Informationen

Zitat von UNCLE SAM

Moin, ist irgendwo ein AKW hochgegangen oder gabs einen Störfall?
Gruss Sam

Wie Störfall, was genau meinst du damit ?

Zitat von gabiheinem

Wie Störfall, was genau meinst du damit ?

Der Beitrag ist von 2021

hallo lucky,

ja deswegen schrieb ich auch

Zitat von Blue Horseshoe

"der witz" an sich, technologische führungsposition im westen... ?

ich war ja bereits darauf eingegangen allerdings finde ich den post dank forumssuche nicht mehr und ich bin zu faul die 2-3 threads alle manuell zu durchsuchen, war im rahmen der reaktortypen.

wenn man jetzt noch weiß das die vorläufer tec eigentlich ebenso aus deutschland kommt(avr reaktor)
https://www.jen-juelich.de/pro…avr-hochtemperaturreaktor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor

ähnlich wie beim dual fluid, die tec die alles entscheiden könnte ist nicht erwünscht.

ein durchbruch bei den hochtemperatur reaktoren ist gerade wegen der prozeßwärme....
h2.. synthetische fuels... ebenso mit den power-to-x verfahren... gespannt bin ich auf den erntefaktor.

bg bh

Es gibt ein Paper zum HTR-PM von 2016, zeigt einige Details. Scheint wirklich vom AVR in Jülich abzustammen. Erstaunlich, daß die Chinesen das Konzept aufgreifen. Ich meine mich dunkel erinnern zu können, daß die Kugelhaufenreaktoren durch die Bank massive Probleme hatte, z.B. ungleichmäßiger Durchströmung wg. zerbrochener Kugeln, dadurch Hitzenester, noch mehr zerbrochene Kugeln und solche Dinge. Jedenfalls scheint es nicht trivial zu sein, in so einem Gebilde für stabile Verhältnisse zu sorgen.

Aber die Chinesen werden Gründe haben. Evtl. steckt der Wunsch dahinter, die ganzen bekannten Ansätze selbst nachzuvollziehen, um hinterher auf einer eigenen Erfahrungsbasis aufzubauen, die man dann nicht mehr unbedingt jedem auf die Nase bindet. Genügend Manpower haben sie, um ihr eigenes Ding zu machen. Theoretisch jedenfalls.

In D wurde das ja auf halben Weg abgewürgt. Und mit jedem woken Jahr wird es schwerer an die früheren Zeiten anzuknüpfen. Man müßte ja erst wieder die Fachbereiche an den Unis zum Leben erwecken. Vieviel Vorlauf braucht das? 10+ Jahre bevor man überhaupt anfangen kann?

die tec ging von deutschland nach südafrika(pbmr) und anschließend nach cn.

die vorläufer des htr-pm(das paper hatt ich irgendwann schon verlink) ist eben der avr sowie der thtr(thtr-300).
die technischen probleme haben die chinesen meines wissens nach gelöst, ist der zweite reaktor des htr-pm seit 11.11.2021 kritisch und nun auf volllast... siehe verlinkter wnn artikel.

. generation IV nuclear is coming. nur halt ob in deutschland ?

gründe haben nicht nur die chinesen, amis, europäer wünschten sie wären so weit bei den hochtemperatur reaktoren... genaugenommen ist der htr-pm wie ich bei den reaktortypen bereits aussführte ein vhtr!

Among the 6 candidates of the Gen IV nuclear systems in the technical roadmap of Gen IV International Forum (GIF), the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) is primarily dedicated to the cogeneration of electricity and hydrogen, the latter being extracted from water by using thermo-chemical, electro-chemical or hybrid processes. Its high outlet temperature makes it attractive also for the chemical, oil and iron industries. Original target of outlet temperature 1 000°C from VHTR can support the efficient production of hydrogen by thermo-chemical processes. The technical basis for VHTR is the TRISO coated particle fuel, the graphite as the core structure, helium coolant, as well as the dedicated core layout and lower power density to removal decay heat in a natural way. The VHTR has potential for inherent safety, high thermal efficiency, process heat application capability, low operation and maintenance costs, and modular construction.
[Blockierte Grafik: https://www.gen-4.org/gif/uplo…tr_02-ga50807-01b_350.jpg]
The VHTR is a next step in the evolutionary development of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. It is a graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactor with thermal neutron spectrum. It can supply nuclear heat and electricity over a range of core outlet temperatures between 700 and 950°C, or more than 1 000°C in future. The reactor core type of the VHTR can be a prismatic block core such as the Japanese HTTR, or a pebble-bed core such as the Chinese HTR-10. For electricity generation, a helium gas turbine system can be directly set in the primary coolant loop, which is called a direct cycle or at the lower end of the outlet temperature range, a steam generator can be used with a conventional rankine cycle. For nuclear heat applications such as process heat for refineries, petrochemistry, metallurgy, and hydrogen production, the heat application process is generally coupled with the reactor through an intermediate heat exchanger (IHX), the so-called indirect cycle. The VHTR can produce hydrogen from only heat and water by using thermochemical processes (such as the sulfur-iodine (S-I) process or the hybrid sulfur process), high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE), or from heat, water, and natural gas by applying the steam reformer technology.
While the original approach for VHTR at the start of the Generation IV program focused on very high outlet temperatures and hydrogen production, current market assessments have indicated that electricity production and industrial processes based on high temperature steam that require modest outlet temperatures (700-850°C) have the greatest potential for application in the next decade and also reduce technical risk associated with higher outlet temperatures. As a result, over the past decade, the focus has moved from higher outlet temperature designs such as GT-MHR and PBMR to lower outlet temperature designs such as HTR-PM in China and the NGNP in the US.
The VHTR has two typical reactor configurations, namely the pebble bed type and the prismatic block type. Although the shape of the fuel element for two configurations are different, the technical basis for both configuration is same, such as the TRISO coated particle fuel in the graphite matrix, full ceramic (graphite) core structure, helium coolant, and low power density, in order to achieve high outlet temperature and the retention of fission production inside the coated particle under normal operation condition and accident condition. The VHTR can support alternative fuel cycles such as U-Pu, Pu, MOX, U-Th.

https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms…-temperature-reactor-vhtr

bg bh

Lawmakers release $1.7T omnibus spending bill

https://www.eenews.net/article…7t-omnibus-spending-bill/

The Department of Energy would get $300 million to secure U.S. nuclear fuel supplies, since Russia is a significant uranium exporter.

bg bh

Danke @Blue Horseshoe

Zitat von Blue Horseshoe

The Department of Energy would get $300 million to secure U.S. nuclear fuel supplies, since Russia is a significant uranium exporter.

300.000.000 § : 60 $/Pfund Uran = 5 Millionen Pfund.

Und wieviel Pfund verbrauchen die USA pro Jahr ca.?
Wie hoch ist aktuell der weltweite Verbrauch?

LG Vatapitta

Zitat von Edel Man

Laserlicht wurden auf eine winzige vergoldete Kapsel gerichtet, was zur Erzeugung von etwas mehr als 3 MJ Energie führte, was der Menge von drei Stangen Dynamit entspricht.
.....
die Hoffnung, dass die Menschheit eines Tages in den Genuss von 100 % sauberer und reichlich vorhandener Energie kommt. ..

,....solange es genug billiges Gold gibt...und ich dachte, die machen das mit Wasserstoffplasma....
Ich wusste ja, das mein Gold nochmal verbraucht und genutzt werden wird!....

<--dies war ein Witz, als Erklärung für nicht-Ironiker!

bitte fusion nicht hier diskutieren, danke

Zitat von vatapitta

Wie hoch ist aktuell der weltweite Verbrauch?

eigene dd ?

https://world-nuclear.org/info…um-mining-production.aspx
https://world-nuclear.org/info…rces/uranium-markets.aspx

Demand

About 440 reactors with combined capacity of about 390 GWe require some 74,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate containing about 62,500 tonnes of uranium (tU) from mines (or the equivalent from stockpiles or secondary sources) each year. This includes initial cores for new reactors coming online. The capacity is growing slowly, and at the same time the reactors are being run more productively, with higher capacity factors, and reactor power levels. However, these factors increasing fuel demand are offset by a trend for increased efficiencies, so demand is dampened – over the 20 years from 1970 there was a 25% reduction in uranium demand per kWh output in Europe due to such improvements, which continue today.
Each GWe of increased new capacity will require about 150 tU/yr of extra mine production routinely, and about 300-450 tU for the first fuel load.
Fuel burn-up is measured in units such as MW days per tonne U (MWd/tU). Increases in burn-up reduce the number of fresh fuel assemblies which need to be loaded. Higher burn-ups therefore result in potential cost savings for the utility at both ends of the fuel cycle. However, increases in burn-up sometimes (but not always) require increased enrichment levels in the fuel assemblies, which increases the uranium and/or the enrichment needed for each assembly, thus increasing the cost of each assembly. During 1980-2010 burn-up levels increased, compared with original designs, to around 40,000 MWd/tU for most LWRs, with reductions in specific uranium consumption. Some utilities have continued to increase burn-ups further, and levels of 45-50 GWd/tU are now common. However, increasing burn-up above 40 GWd/tU only reduces specific uranium consumption slightly, while very slightly increasing specific enrichment requirements. For example, an increase from 40 to 50 GWd/tU reduces uranium requirements by 4-5% and increases enrichment requirements by about 2-3%.
Generally, utilities have pursued higher enrichment and burn-ups, and when uranium prices were high they specified low tails assays from enrichment, to get more fuel from it, so that significantly less natural uranium feed was required. However, more enrichment energy was then needed. There is a clear trade-off between energy input to enrichment and uranium input.
[Blockierte Grafik: https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/601d097b-1b7d-4bcb-a4fd-ad30d1218a44/Uranium-and-enrichment-requirements-different-tails-assay.png.aspx]
Percentage variation in uranium requirements and separative work unit (SWU) requirements (i.e. energy input to enrichment) with different tails assays, from a base tails assay of 0.22% U-235 (Source: World Nuclear Association)
Because of the cost structure of nuclear power generation, with high capital and low fuel costs, the demand for uranium fuel is much more predictable than with probably any other mineral commodity. Once reactors are built, it is very cost-effective to keep them running at high capacity and for utilities to make any adjustments to load trends by cutting back on fossil fuel use. Demand forecasts for uranium thus depend largely on installed and operable capacity, regardless of economic fluctuations. However, this picture is complicated by policies which give preferential grid access to subsidised wind and solar PV sources.
Looking ten years ahead, the market is expected to grow. The Reference Scenario of the 2021 edition of the World Nuclear Association's Nuclear Fuel Report shows a 27% increase in uranium demand over 2021-30 (for a 16% increase in reactor capacity – many new cores will be required, and electricity demand is expected to recover following the pandemic). Demand thereafter will depend on new plant being built and the rate at which older plant is retired – the Reference Scenario of the 2021 Nuclear Fuel Report has a 38% increase in uranium demand for the decade 2031-2040. Licensing of plant lifetime extensions and the economic attractiveness of continued operation of older reactors are critical factors in the medium-term uranium market. However, with electricity demand by 2040 potentially increasing by about 50% from that of 2019 (based on the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2020 report), there is plenty of scope for growth in nuclear capacity in a world concerned with limiting carbon emissions.

Supply

Mines in 2021 supplied some 56,961 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (U₃O₈) containing 48,303 tU, 77% of the utilities' annual requirements (see also information page on World Uranium Mining). The balance is made up from secondary sources including stockpiled uranium held by utilities, and in the last few years of low prices those civil stockpiles have been built up again following their depletion over 1990-2005. At the end of 2020 they were estimated at about 40,000 tU in each of Europe and the USA, about 130,000 tU in China, and about 60,000 tU in the rest of Asia.
Note that at the prices which utilities are likely to be paying for current delivery, only one-third of the cost of the fuel loaded into a nuclear reactor is the actual ex-mine (or other) supply. The balance is mostly the cost of enrichment and fuel fabrication, with a small element for uranium conversion.
With the main growth in uranium demand being in Russia and China, it is noteworthy that the vertically-integrated sovereign nuclear industries in these countries (and potentially India) have sought equity in uranium mines abroad, bypassing the market to some extent. Strategic investment in uranium production, even if it is not lowest-cost, has become the priority while world prices have been generally low. Russia’s ARMZ bought Canada-based Uranium One in 2013, and China holds equity in mines in Niger, Namibia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Canada.

Supply from elsewhere

As well as existing and likely new mines, nuclear fuel supply may be from secondary sources including:

• Recycled uranium and plutonium from used fuel, as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel.
• Re-enriched depleted uranium tails.
• Ex-military weapons-grade uranium, blended down.
• Civil stockpiles.
• Ex-military weapons-grade plutonium, as MOX fuel.

Commercial reprocessing plants are operating in France and Russia with a combined capacity of about 2000 tonnes of heavy metal (tHM) per year. World reprocessing capacity would increase by 800 tHM with the restart of the Japanese plant at Rokkasho-Mura. Further capacity is under construction in Russia and China, and there are a number of other plants with small reprocessing capacities worldwide.
Military uranium for weapons was enriched to much higher levels than that for the civil fuel cycle. Weapons-grade material is about 97% U-235, and this can be diluted about 25:1 with depleted uranium (or 30:1 with enriched depleted uranium) to reduce it to about 4%, suitable for use in a power reactor. From 1999 to 2013 the dilution of 30 tonnes per year of such material displaced about 9720 tonnes U₃O₈ per year of mine production. (See also page on Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel.)
The following graph gives an historical perspective, showing how early production went first into military inventories and then, in the early 1980s, into civil stockpiles. It is this early production which has made up the shortfall in supply from mines since the mid-1980s. However, the shortfall is diminishing towards the level of continuing secondary supplies.
[Blockierte Grafik: https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/ec98a5fe-5355-4a83-9646-ed232625d322/world-uranium-production-and-demand-2021.png.aspx]
World uranium production and reactor requirements, 1945-2020, tU (source: OECD-NEA, IAEA, World Nuclear Association)
The following graph suggests how these various sources of supply might look in the decades ahead. The graph shows a breakdown of the Reference Scenario of the 2021 edition of the World Nuclear Association's Nuclear Fuel Report) into current mine capacity (with idled capacity separated), and capacity that is under development, planned or prospective. The black line shows the Reference Scenario of the 2019 edition of The Nuclear Fuel Report for comparison. In the near term, current uranium production is considerably lower than anticipated in the 2019 edition, mainly due to suspension of production at several major mining centres as a result of low prices compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic.
[Blockierte Grafik: https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/7ffc40a0-cc7f-4df5-a4c1-0a6fee4b76f2/reference-scenario-prospective-production-tu-2021.png.aspx]
Reference Scenario for uranium production, tU (source: The Nuclear Fuel Report, World Nuclear Association)

Zitat von vatapitta

Und wieviel Pfund verbrauchen die USA pro Jahr ca.?

Uranium is the fuel most widely used by nuclear power plants for nuclear fission. Uranium is a common metal found in rocks all over the world. Uranium occurs in combination with small amounts of other elements. There are economically recoverable uranium deposits in the western United States, Australia, Canada, Central Asia, Africa, and South America.
Owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power reactors purchased the equivalent of about 46.74 million pounds of uranium in 2021.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl…ur-uranium-comes-from.php

die reale "burn rate" der us-flotte müsste für die 104 akw bei ca 55 mio lbs liegen.

bg bh

Zitat von lazybastard

Würde ich erst mal auch so sehen, aber streng gefasst müßten die Zukäufe aber ja wohl in den USA selbst erfolgen und da gibt es gar keine großen Uranförderer mehr. Hintergrund war wohl eher der, den Resten der einheimischen Uranindustrie wieder Leben einzuhauchen.

Kazatomprom hat ja inzwischen schon mehrmals durchblicken lassen, dass man nicht mehr der globale Billiglieferant sein will, sondern ebenfalls auf höhere Preise abzielt

Kann mir jemand aktuell die besten Videos zusenden ?

Zitat von stoxxfoxx

Kann mir jemand aktuell die besten Videos zusenden ?

dyor - wird immer besser hier - oder lies einfach die threads hier.

Japan wendet sich wieder komplett Richtung Kernenergie , auf allen ebenen.

Japan verabschiedet Plan zur Maximierung der Kernenergie in einer großen Veränderung

Von MARI YAMAGUCHIHeute
[Blockierte Grafik: https://storage.googleapis.com…4bb3cb0c1ea14aa/1000.webp]
DATEI - Dieses Luftbild zeigt das Kernkraftwerk Fukushima Daiichi in der Stadt Okuma, Präfektur Fukushima, nördlich von Tokio, am 17. März 2022. Japan hat am Donnerstag, den 22. Dezember, eine neue Politik zur Förderung einer stärkeren Nutzung der Kernenergie verabschiedet, um eine stabile Stromversorgung inmitten der globalen Kraftstoffknappheit zu gewährleisten und die Kohlenstoffemissionen zu reduzieren - eine große Umkehrung seines Ausstiegsplans seit der Fukushima-Krise. (Shohei Miyano/Kyodo News via AP, Datei)
TOKIO (AP) - Japan verabschiedete am Donnerstag einen Plan, um die Lebensdauer von Kernreaktoren zu verlängern, die alten zu ersetzen und sogar neue zu bauen, eine große Verschiebung in einem Land, das von der Katastrophe von Fukushima gezeichnet war, das einst plante, die Atomkraft auslaufen zu lassen.

https://apnews.com/article/rus…fecc8cdc197d217b3029c5898

Zitat von Bozkaschi

Japan wendet sich wieder komplett Richtung Kernenergie , auf allen ebenen.

den u-turn in der japanischen energiepolitik habe ich mehrmals prognostiziert, unter anderem vor ca 1-2/3 jahren. wenn ich mich recht erinnere ua in post #75

wenn ich gerade die richtigen zahlen vorliegen habe, wurden in japan
- in den letzten 10 jahren 10 reaktoren wieder angefahren
- befinden sich 15 reaktoren in unterschiedlichen prozess-ebenen des wiederanfahrens.

der bedarf der reaktoren muss auch wieder langfristig abgesichert sein. ich vermute also
das japanische utilities bereits wieder in den ltc aktiv sind, bzw verhandeln.
auch vergessen werden sollte nicht, zum anfahren wird erheblich mehr fuel benötigt - die zwei bis dreifache menge!

dannach sieht prozeß in etwa wie folgt aus(gen3/gen3+ pwr)

A typical 1000 MWe (3000 MWth) nuclear core may contain 157 fuel assemblies composed of over 45,000 fuel rods and 15 million fuel pellets. Generally, a common fuel assembly contains energy for approximately 4 years of operation at full power. Once loaded, the fuel stays in the core for 4 years, depending on the design of the operating cycle. During these 4 years, the reactor core has to be refueled. During refueling, every 12 to 18 months, some of the fuel – usually one-third or one-quarter of the core – is removed to the spent fuel pool. At the same time, the remainder is rearranged to a location in the core better suited to its remaining level of enrichment. The removed fuel (one-third or one-quarter of the core, i.e., 40 assemblies) must be replaced by fresh fuel assemblies. It follows, there are about 3-4 fuel batches that differ from each other in the fuel burnup.

Ein typischer 1000-MWe-Kern (3000 MWth) kann 157 Brennelemente enthalten, die aus über 45.000 Brennstäben und 15 Millionen Brennstoffpellets bestehen. Im Allgemeinen enthält ein gewöhnliches Brennelement Energie für etwa 4 Jahre Betrieb bei voller Leistung. Nach der Beladung verbleibt der Brennstoff je nach Auslegung des Betriebszyklus 4 Jahre lang im Kern. Während dieser 4 Jahre muss der Reaktorkern nachgefüllt werden. Beim Brennelementwechsel, der alle 12 bis 18 Monate stattfindet, wird ein Teil des Brennstoffs - in der Regel ein Drittel oder ein Viertel des Kerns - in das Becken für abgebrannte Brennelemente verbracht. Gleichzeitig wird der restliche Brennstoff an eine Stelle im Kern gebracht, die für den verbleibenden Anreicherungsgrad besser geeignet ist. Der entfernte Brennstoff (ein Drittel oder ein Viertel des Kerns, d.h. 40 Brennelemente) muss durch frische Brennelemente ersetzt werden. Daraus folgt, dass es etwa 3-4 Brennelementchargen gibt, die sich im Brennstoffabbrand voneinander unterscheiden.
Übersetzt mit http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (kostenlose Version)

bg bh

Nuclear Energy and the Uranium Breakout

[Blockierte Grafik: https://e7j3v5v7.rocketcdn.me/…akout-Katusa-Research.jpg]
It wasn’t widely shared or reported, but it should’ve been.

There was major news in the nuclear sector last week that caught my eye.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the achievement of fusion ignition at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

This is significant.

Fusion was considered science fiction and wishful thinking until very recently. And now there’s scientific proof of a successful reaction.

From the release:

“On Dec. 5, a team at LLNL’s National Ignition Facility (NIF) conducted the first controlled fusion experiment in history to reach this milestone, also known as scientific energy breakeven, meaning it produced more energy from fusion than the laser energy used to drive it.”

This is a major step to reliable, cost-effective, and stable baseload power for the world. Not to mention, ultra-low in emissions.

Bravo and congratulations to all those involved.
You May Have Noticed a Nuclear Sentiment Shift…
When it comes to Nuclear energy, investors must watch Russia and China.

They’re planning massive nuclear reactor capacity which will have major impacts on uranium demand.

However, don’t forget to keep an eye on Europe…

It will be the center of the policy and sentiment shift.

It should come as no surprise that European nations are reversing their ‘anti-nuclear’ agendas as electricity prices explode.

For instance:

• Germany has pushed to extend 3 nuclear power plants running.
• Swiss politicians are now launching a petition to revise the country’s anti-nuclear policies.
• And even Italy is beginning to rethink their long-standing no-nuclear stance

Suddenly, Nuclear is Cool Again. Why?
Simple, nuclear energy is carbon neutral.

Right now, it powers 1 in 5 homes in America and is the cheapest operating source of baseload power in the USA.

For example, 11 nuclear plants in Illinois and Pennsylvania produced more power than all solar in the U.S. in 2021. (Source: EIA)

• If the U.S. invests about $1 trillion into nuclear energy by 2050, it could supply more than 3,500TWh of energy per year.

In that scenario, nuclear would provide 85% of current energy consumption.

Oh, and all carbon-free, for less than half of the CARES Act stimulus.

Net Zero Solved. You’re welcome.
No Brainer: Affordable Net Zero Power
On top of this, the push for zero-carbon energy (aka energy that emits zero emissions) is growing sharply.

Things like coal and crude oil production are taboo.

So, there’s increasing demand for both cheaper and zero-carbon energy sources.

This is where nuclear comes in…

Putting it simply, you can’t hit consistent zero-carbon pledges without using nuclear energy.

It’s just not possible. That’s because nuclear energy is a highly efficient, zero-emission, and clean energy source.

Forbes wrote that,

“To reach net-zero by 2050, the US would need to deploy one new nuclear power plant worth of carbon-free energy about every six days, starting this week [this was written in September 2019], and continue until 2050…”

Global X ETFs showed the dire shortfall of nuclear reactors needed by 2050 to hit the base-case for net-zero emissions.
<source type="image/webp" srcset="https://e7j3v5v7.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Global-Nuclear-Capacity-1024x802.png.webp 1024w, https://e7j3v5v7.rocketcdn.me/…Capacity-300x235.png.webp 300w, https://e7j3v5v7.rocketcdn.me/…Capacity-768x601.png.webp 768w, https://e7j3v5v7.rocketcdn.me/…apacity-1200x939.png.webp 1200w, https://e7j3v5v7.rocketcdn.me/…Nuclear-Capacity.png.webp 1280w" sizes="(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px">[Blockierte Grafik: https://e7j3v5v7.rocketcdn.me/…ear-Capacity-1024x802.png]
According to them, there’s a roughly 50% gap between what’s planned vs. what’s needed…

Uranium Forecast: Supply and Demand
Here’s the current supply and demand scenario around the world.

• A total of 99 nuclear reactors are planned, with over 300 more reactors in the proposal stage

Even the Biden administration supported the nuclear energy drive by handing out $6 billion in funding in April.

Some other examples of the renewed nuclear renaissance are:

• Canada committed C$970 million towards financing new nuclear power technology.
• South Korea’s new president – Yoon Suk Yeol – has aggressively pushed at boosting nuclear energy to overtake coal as the main source of electricity.
• Japan is planning to restart seven nuclear reactors by summer 2023 as nuclear energy begins to gain back political and public support.

This is something that speaks volumes towards this, and that is the sentiment shift in Japan…

Where nuclear energy is becoming more popular again, just 11 years after suffering their own nuclear crisis.

It’s clear that nuclear power has come back into favor.

This bodes well for uranium stocks that can profit from rising prices over the coming years.

https://katusaresearch.com/nuc…and-the-uranium-breakout/

Zitat von Blue Horseshoe

uf6 176,75
swu 94
conversion 40
u308 52,30

zeigt sehr deutlich wo es "harpert". ist ja auch keine neue entwicklung. overfeeding dürfte rasant zunehmen.

Zitat von Blue Horseshoe

im märz stiegen die kosten für die seperate work units(SWU) um 31%
was ja sozusagen belegt das nun definitiv von underfeeding zu overfeeding übergegangen wurde.
wie erkläre ich das am besten? mehr uf6 in die zentrifugen für einen kürzeren zeitraum um die gewünschte menge
eup(enriched uranium product) herzustellen.
preise für conversion sind im märz um 60% gestiegen.(ru hat ca 38% der globalen kapazität, ich vermute mal das "selbstembargos" eine rolle spielen und die preise für uf6 sind um 21% angezogen.

12 monats preisänderung

uf6 +31%
spot conversion +150%
spot & term swu +123%
eup +50% !!
u3o8 ltc +26%
spot u3o8 +13%

bg bh