10Mes
The growth does not make sense to me. If you look at uranium primarily as an energy source, the price framework is limited.
The higher the price of the raw material, the higher the follow-up costs of processing. In this case, nuclear power becomes more expensive. Companies are generally interested in maximizing profits, which is why rising costs lead to falling margins for operators, because the price of electricity must remain low in order to ensure the competitiveness of the country as a whole.
In this respect, there will be significant corrections to many commodities on the world market in the foreseeable future, at the latest with the reintegration of Russia. Uranium, potash and also crude oil will correct significantly following the trend of the last year, taking into account the competition from RE investment offensives and subsidy programs.
The higher the price of the raw material, the higher the follow-up costs of processing. In this case, nuclear power becomes more expensive. Companies are generally interested in maximizing profits, which is why rising costs lead to falling margins for operators, because the price of electricity must remain low in order to ensure the competitiveness of the country as a whole.
In this respect, there will be significant corrections to many commodities on the world market in the foreseeable future, at the latest with the reintegration of Russia. Uranium, potash and also crude oil will correct significantly following the trend of the last year, taking into account the competition from RE investment offensives and subsidy programs.
•
55
•
10Mes
@Hannes_SK Jain, the price is still 35% off its 2007 peak, despite growth of 230% in the last 10 years. Kazatomprom is needed for the power plants in China and in the future also in Saudi Arabia, in addition to Russia and other nuclear countries. Nuclear power currently costs 2.3 cents per KW/h in Europe and compared to other energy producers, only the construction of the power plants is partially subsidized and not the production of electricity as in Germany with wind power. And production is controllable, unlike solar or wind power.
•
11
•
@MrMister I'm not an expert, but I can't imagine 2.3 cents per KW/h.
You have to factor in the disposal and I don't think that's cheap, because storing it in a disused salt mine is simply not an option given the half-lives
You have to factor in the disposal and I don't think that's cheap, because storing it in a disused salt mine is simply not an option given the half-lives
•
33
•10Mes
@Der_Dividenden_Monteur that will soon be history. We are currently in the process of continuing to produce electricity with long-lived radionuclides, see thorium reactors or dual-fluid reactors. There are other reactors that can do this. Storage costs less than you might think. And the costs are minimized by reuse.
•
22
•10Mes
@Der_Dividenden_Monteur Yes, that's true. For old piles after amortization, the generation costs per kWh are really around 3ct. For new buildings around 6ct/kWh. RE at around 8ct.
But if you were to include all costs, the figure would be around 17ct/kWh.
Nevertheless, it is a fuel in the raw material that becomes permanently more expensive due to scarcity. This is not the case with renewables, which is why the long-term costs are unrivaled and, thanks to the massive subsidies, represent a gift for every producer for sustained profits.
This can already be seen very clearly today in the balance sheet of $RWE and the general margins of operators of wind and solar parks.
But if you were to include all costs, the figure would be around 17ct/kWh.
Nevertheless, it is a fuel in the raw material that becomes permanently more expensive due to scarcity. This is not the case with renewables, which is why the long-term costs are unrivaled and, thanks to the massive subsidies, represent a gift for every producer for sustained profits.
This can already be seen very clearly today in the balance sheet of $RWE and the general margins of operators of wind and solar parks.
•
11
•@MrMister But what about the waste that has already been produced? That still has to be paid for.
If I remember correctly, there are metal barrels in mines whose contents will have to be transferred to new containers by someone at some point 😅
I am invested in $YCA myself, but the disposal is still not solved
If I remember correctly, there are metal barrels in mines whose contents will have to be transferred to new containers by someone at some point 😅
I am invested in $YCA myself, but the disposal is still not solved
•
11
•10Mes
@Der_Dividenden_Monteur Disposal has really not yet been finally resolved, but this will also be resolved this year in cooperation with the trade association and the government and all those involved. A decision must be made. However, disposal is already financed with a current 40 billion euros.
••
10Mes
@Der_Dividenden_Monteur Well, it's all a bit naive. Nuclear power does not have to be insured, the state provides the guarantees. The state is also in charge of waste disposal, there is only one fund into which the producers pay. All in all, nuclear energy is significantly more heavily subsidized than all other forms of energy combined. But as long as the lobby is right. One advantage is that plutonium is produced during reprocessing and that compensates for everything else. Ask Putin.
••
10Mes
@KleinviehmachtMist Unfortunately, that's bullshit. Please inform yourself better before you spread misinformation. It is true that plutonium is filtered out during reprocessing in the Plurex process and could be used to build nuclear bombs. However, this is not regulated by Putin, but by the IAEA. It is true that all energy producers in Germany have paid money into a fund for dismantling, and if this is insufficient, the state will step in. This has nothing to do with production. Most research projects such as Wendelstein or ITER or Dual-Fluid are financed internationally. Only the construction of a nuclear power plant is subsidized or pre-financed and the costs for this are converted into studies. And it has now also been refuted that nuclear power plants are/were not insured. In an international comparison of the sum insured, more was actually paid in Germany than in other countries because the calculations and studies used as a basis at the time were completely wrong.
I am asking you to provide me with evidence that nuclear power was subsidized more than all other forms of energy combined. And please not the Greenpeace study or a reference to it. An independent study.
I am asking you to provide me with evidence that nuclear power was subsidized more than all other forms of energy combined. And please not the Greenpeace study or a reference to it. An independent study.
••
10Mes
@MrMister I don't believe that Russia or the USA will let the IAEA dictate how many nuclear weapons they have in their arsenal. It is also no secret that the UN veto powers all have a considerable arsenal of nuclear weapons. Why were German fuel rods reprocessed in France again? I don't remember the federal police being paid by RWE for protection here. The contributions for the nuclear power plant are capped, in the end the federal government steps in, nobody can pay for a super disaster and nobody can insure it. Here is a study https://foes.de/publikationen/2020/2020-09_FOES_Kosten_Atomenergie.pdf
••
10Mes
@KleinviehmachtMist You just sent the link from Greenpeace and not the independent report I asked you for. The fuel rods are reprocessed and the uranium there is re-enriched. Used fuel rods from Europe are always distributed to the countries and re-enriched. The Purex process is standard. And why is this done? Because the longevity of the radionuclides means that they have to be stored for far too long, even though they can still generate enough energy. Unfortunately, you don't deal with this enough, which I think is a shame.
••