Uranium’s Glow Still Smothered by Safety Concerns



Comments (7)

  1. Tim Ayers says:

    The price spike to $44/lbs was tied to one sale of uranium. A weekly track of uranium spot prices will show you that it only paused at $44 for a moment. 50%+ increases YOY in this commodity were just too optimistic in the short term. Long term projections are for $80+/lb (5 years) and that is believable given China’s desire to shift to cleaner energy sources. If you’ve ever been to Beijing, you’ll understand why.

    India should also be mentioned in this story as well, as they look for their own peice of the nuclear pie. And, lastly, don’t forget Japan. They have been importing fossil fuels to satisfy their energy needs but are looking to restart.

    Question: How many wind mills or solar panels would you need to equal the smallest nuclear power plant?
    Answer: ~100,000 acres with ~700 wind mills
    ~13,000 acres blanketed with solar panels
    And if you have little wind or significant cloud cover, add to those totals.

    [Reply]

  2. Art Sunley says:

    So transformers on nuclear plants have leaked oil. Why does that mean nuclear plants are dangerous?

    [Reply]

    Shelley Goldberg

    Shelley Goldberg Reply:

    Dear Art,
    Thank you for your comment. When transformers leak oil, it does not necessarily mean nuclear plants are dangerous. But, what it does indicate is:
    1) An environmental concern. No one wants oil mixed with a flame retardant foam, which is used to extinguish the fire, leaking into their local rivers.
    2) Reliability issues. The fact that the Indian Point plant could be offline for weeks as a result, indicates that nuclear power is not necessarily a reliable source of energy. It is particularly concerning when it is a source of power for a major metropolis, like New York City.

    [Reply]

  3. Noel Wauchope says:

    All very well – except that nuclear energy is NOT clean.

    For one thing – the total nuclear chain from uranium mining to the burial of dead reactors – emits large amounts of CO2 – and that’s without mentioning all the transport involved.

    For another thing – while coal and other mining do emit radioactive isotopes, no industry other than nuclear produces virtually eternal highly carcinogenic radioactive wastes.

    No other industry runs the risk, however small, of catastrophic accidents that make large areas of land unlivable for decades.

    It’s not merely a joke to call nuclear energy “clean’. It’s a lie

    [Reply]

  4. ALARA says:

    “So, why is the price continuing to drop?”

    Because nuclear generated electricity is dead, with the triple core meltouts at Fukushima being the last three nails in nuclear’s coffin.

    [Reply]

  5. Art Guske says:

    Since uranium is a commodity one could guess that the price is manipulated by paper pricing like gold and silver.

    [Reply]

  6. Alan says:

    It would be nice to have someone capable of writing a more balanced approach to this subject.

    Currently, there are alternative power systems being developed that appear to hold promise. But to say that Solar and Wind will be alternative sources of power for the near future (40 years) is drinking the Kool-Aid.

    There is also too much attempt by current environmentalist crowd to suppress opposing views that suggest there is more to their agenda than a cleaner planet!

    Allow open markets, level playing field, and free flow of capital to sort out tec development. Govt. choosing winner and losers has failed time & time again.

    The bottom line to all of this cleaner planet agenda is can the little guy survive and live a life w/o being starved to death, financially robbed, taxed to death because someone who holds a political office thinks he deserves your money to spend it as he sees fit!

    The visionaries belong in the private sector where life and death ideas survive based on profit. The largest tech challenge in the next millennium will be if govt. can live w/in its means and the constitution.

    [Reply]

Add Comment