Beiträge von Blue Horseshoe

    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

    bitte fusion nicht hier diskutieren, danke



    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)

    https://deepyellow.com.au/wp-c…nOfRoyaltyDeed20Dec22.pdf


    NEWS RELEASE
    Level 1, 502 Hay Street, Subiaco
    Western Australia 6008 Australia
    +61 8 9286 6999
    info@deepyellow.com.au
    http://www.deepyellow.com.au
    ABN: 97 006 391 948
    DYL: ASX & NSX (Namibia)
    DYLLF: OTCQX
    20 December 2022
    MULGA ROCK PROJECT - TERMINATION OF ROYALTY DEED
    Deep Yellow Limited (Deep Yellow or Company) is pleased to announce that it has, together with its
    wholly-owned subsidiary Narnoo Mining Pty Ltd (Narnoo), entered into a binding agreement with
    Resource Capital Fund VI L.P. (RCF) to terminate the Minerals Royalty Deed (Royalty Deed), which
    was entered into by RCF with Narnoo in 2015 (Termination Deed). Under the Royalty Deed, RCF was
    entitled to receive a 1.15% royalty on all ore, concentrates and other products extracted from the Mulga
    Rock Project in Western Australia (Royalty).
    Under the Termination Deed, RCF (or its nominee) will receive $14 million worth of ordinary shares in
    Deep Yellow (Consideration Shares) as consideration to terminate the Royalty, with the Consideration
    Shares to be issued at the 5-day volume weighted average price (VWAP) of Deep Yellow shares on the
    ASX immediately prior to the completion date (expected to be on 22 December 2022). Based on the
    current 5-day VWAP of $0.72, RCF (or its nominee) would receive approximately 19.4 million
    Consideration Shares.
    The Consideration Shares will be issued under the Company’s existing capacity under Listing Rule 7.1
    and will not require shareholder approval.
    Following completion of the merger with Vimy in August 2022, Deep Yellow initiated an evaluation
    program aimed at significantly increasing the value of the Mulga Rock Project through the
    identification and recovery of critical minerals associated within the Mulga Rock deposits. The re-
    appraisal included the assessment of minerals such as copper, nickel, cobalt, zinc, and rare earths (see
    ASX announcement on 25 November 2022). All of these minerals would have attracted the Royalty.
    Deep Yellow Managing Director/CEO John Borshoff commented:
    “Given the potential significant increase in value within the revised Mulga Rock Project that has been
    identified through our evaluation program, the termination of this Royalty adds further considerable
    value and ensures future additional value-enhancing initiatives fully benefit Deep Yellow
    shareholders.”

    Aber ich lasse es jetzt gut sein, Freunde macht man sich offensichtlich nicht, wenn man im UEC-Thread nichts bullisches postet .

    was hat ein hinweisen auf fundamentale sachverhalte mit "freunde machen" zu tun?
    kannst du halten wie du möchtest.


    Da sich der U.UU am Spotpreis orientiert, ist aber doch genau das entscheidend für den Preis oder nicht?

    u.uu ? was meinst du? den sput? der hat ticker u.u in usa und u.un in canada.
    das entscheidende für den börsenwert von uec ist also allein der preis des sput ? :whistling:


    für die uraner, was spielt denn fundamental mittel/langfristig eher eine rolle, die preise/lb die sie über ltc bekommen oder im spotmarkt?
    das volumen im spotmarkt ist ein bruchteil des volumens in den ltc.
    zu welchen preisen in den ltc sollte zb. mc arthur wieder gestartet werden?


    dazu hatte ich in den fäden detailliert geschrieben, kannst du dir bei interesse raussuchen.

    Machen wir Pfund gegen Pfund....

    [smilie_denk] ?) ich glaube da müssen wir nochmal verhandeln


    Externer Inhalt www.youtube.com
    Inhalte von externen Seiten werden ohne Ihre Zustimmung nicht automatisch geladen und angezeigt.
    Durch die Aktivierung der externen Inhalte erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass personenbezogene Daten an Drittplattformen übermittelt werden. Mehr Informationen dazu haben wir in unserer Datenschutzerklärung zur Verfügung gestellt.


    für Dich mach ich sogar Tara fürs Glas!

    [smilie_happy] ich brauch wohl noch pergamentpapier mit bleibeschichtung :saint:

    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 [smilie_denk] :wall: ?


    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

    hallo lucky,


    ja deswegen schrieb ich auch


    "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

    jeweiligen Transaktionen im Vorhinein veröffentlicht wurden.

    weil caldera das ja auch die ganze zeit vor seinem mittagsschlaf so handhabt... [smilie_denk] [smilie_happy]


    und @txlfan , nichts für ungut, denke du hast vieles nicht gelesen, der einzige der hier andere meinungen nicht akzeptiert hat und zeitgleich enorm wichtige geopolitische verschiebungen ausgeblendet hat, ist der meister selbst.


    bg und allen frohes investieren/spekulieren.
    bh