Beiträge von Blue Horseshoe

  • Klimawahn...

    Zitat von LuckyFriday

    Was, nur 20 Jahre Nutzungsdauer

    20 jahre 8| [smilie_happy] :evil:



    Wind turbines 'only lasting for half as long as previously thought'
    as study shows they show signs of wearing out after just 12 years


    • Study of almost 3,000 turbines in Britain sheds doubt on manufacturers claims that they generate clean energy for up to 25 years
    • The research will fuel criticism of wind farms

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne…earing-just-12-years.html



    zum müllproblem gerade mit den rotorblättern hatte ich vor ca 3 jahren etwas eingestellt...


    Zitat von Blue Horseshoe

    Pu Liu und Claire Barlow haben 2017 schon berechnet, was da an Schrott auf die Menschheit zukommt: 43.000.000 Tonnen Abfall nur aus den Rotoren der Windturbinen gibt es bis 2050. Zum Vergleich: Ein Airbus A380 wiegt rund 580 Tonnen. Der Abfallberg, der nur mit Rotorblättern von Windturbinen bis 2050 aufgetürmt wird, entspricht somit 74.138 Airbus A380. Irre. Und wie gesagt, die Entsorgung ist ungeklärt. Die einzige Möglichkeit, die bislang besteht: Den Schrott auf Kosten der Allgemeinheit in Mülldeponien abladen.


    25% des Mülls aus Rotorenblättern von Windturbinen, wird in Europa aufgetürmt. Das sind respektable 11.000.000 Tonnen Schrott, die entsorgt werden müssen, 18.966 Airbus A380. Aber sicher haben sich die Windkraft-Enthusiasten schon Gedanken über die Entsorgung gemacht. Sicher wollen sie den Müll, der mit hohen Zuschüssen der Steuerzahler einst als Windturbine erbaut wurde, nicht auf Kosten derselben Steuerzahler in Mülldeponien hinterlassen – oder?


    bg bh

  • Uran -- Märkte und Informationen

    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

  • Uran -- Märkte und Informationen

    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

  • Uran -- Märkte und Informationen

    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)

  • Uranaktien: Minen, Explorer, Produzenten, Anwender

    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.”

  • Uranium Energy / UEC (NYSE)

    Zitat von Euroliebhaber

    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.


    Zitat von Euroliebhaber

    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.

  • Russland - Der Bär wehrt sich

    Zitat von Seeadler

    Auf beiden Seiten sind etliche tausend Panzerabwehrmittel vorhanden - wieso können da überhaupt noch Panzer existieren

    da bin ich mir nicht so sicher ?




    Javelin, Stinger stockpiles running low: Raytheon CEO
    Raytheon's CEO stresses that the company's arsenals of Javelins and Stingers are running low due to the massive aid being sent to Ukraine



    avelin anti-tank and Stinger
    anti-aircraft missiles are depleting at an alarming rate, with the
    arsenals being voided of weapons that took years to produce within
    months, Raytheon Technologies CEO Greg Hayes said Monday, citing the
    United States flow of aid into Ukraine as the reason being.
    The United States has been sending Javelins and Stingers into Kiev in the thousands, and they have been acclaimed as one of the reasons why Ukraine has been able to hold its ground as well as it has over the course of the war.
    Raytheon, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, is producing around 400 Javelins per month, the CEO revealed, noting that the stream of weapons into Ukraine has been driving eating through the two companies' stockpiles of shoulder-mounted weapons.
    Meanwhile, the United States has sent 5,500 Javelins and 1,400 Stingers to Ukraine as of May, with the number definitely being a lot higher due to several aid packages approved since then.
    “The problem is we have consumed so much supply in the first ten months of the war," the arms manufacturing conglomerate's CEO said, stressing that the stream of arms used up five years' worth of Javelin production and 13 years' worth of Stinger production, wondering who was going to replenish the depleted stockpiles.


    https://english.almayadeen.net…running-low:-raytheon-ceo