LOL @ not investing in Uranium right now

[Agepilll]

uranium bulls unite.

uranium is gonnna rocket in the next 5-10 years easily.

renewable energy is trash and way too expensive.

with EV and crypto mining, along with other factors energy is going to be in high demand.

no one will want to charge their EV and coast them an arm and a leg.

also more importantly, energy sector along with precious metal is the best hedge against inflation which is coming big time.

URANIUM = gonna be our time in the sun soon.

Where ya'll uranium crew at?

[SouthDakotaBrah]

As an economic consultant for the electric utility industry, I can confidently say that utilities in the US will generally not be using nuclear power in our lifetimes (srs) nuclear power is a lost cause... there's lots of complex reasons for this related to politics and the regulatory environment, but the bottom line is that nuclear power is too expensive to be worth it. Even with the environment in mind, It's easier and cheaper to build an electric grid with wind/solar/batteries/gas-fired peaking plants than it is to rely on nuclear.

Without making it into an argument on the efficacy of nuclear power... it doesn't really matter, new nuclear projects simply won't be approved in the US. No utilities are planning to build nuclear and it would be very unlikely for any public utilities commission to approve a utility plan to build nuclear power. The last couple that did get approved were complete disasters that wasted tens of billions of dollars of electric ratepayer money.

[Agepilll]

As an economic consultant for the electric utility industry, I can confidently say that utilities in the US will generally not be using nuclear power in our lifetimes (srs) nuclear power is a lost cause... there's lots of complex reasons for this related to politics and the regulatory environment, but the bottom line is that nuclear power is too expensive to be worth it. Even with the environment in mind, It's easier and cheaper to build an electric grid with wind/solar/batteries/gas-fired peaking plants than it is to rely on nuclear.

Without making it into an argument on the efficacy of nuclear power... it doesn't really matter, new nuclear projects simply won't be approved in the US. No utilities are planning to build nuclear and it would be very unlikely for any public utilities commission to approve a utility plan to build nuclear power. The last couple that did get approved were complete disasters that wasted tens of billions of dollars of electric ratepayer money.

lmao politics make ZERO differnce with uranium

there will be a huge demand for energy.

if it gets too expensive, there will be a demand for cheaper energy, and it will become a national security issues to get cheaper energy. the politicans will change their tune so fast it will make your head spin.

you already see the b1tching and moaning with gas prices.


and LMAO @ you saying nuclear energy is way too expensive. ur not an consultant at all, just a braindead idiot.

[SouthDakotaBrah]

lmao politics make ZERO differnce with uranium

there will be a huge demand for energy.

if it gets too expensive, there will be a demand for cheaper energy, and it will become a national security issues to get cheaper energy. the politicans will change their tune so fast it will make your head spin.

you already see the b1tching and moaning with gas prices.


and LMAO @ you saying nuclear energy is way too expensive. ur not an consultant at all, just a braindead idiot.

you sound like an idiot (srs)

i'd recommend staying out of investing, your tiny brain clearly can't comprehend topics related to money

[ghostfacedup]

Aren't other countries already using nuclear efficiently for energy?

[TheCore84]

Nuclear is cheap and safe, the only thing wrong with it is the name. Most of the politicians and general public are too stupid to understand this.

[Duckliver]

Aren't other countries already using nuclear efficiently for energy?

Yes, America has to much red tape making it not worth it. This topic has been discussed to death.

[SouthDakotaBrah]

Yes, America has to much red tape making it not worth it. This topic has been discussed to death.

Yep, fixed costs for nuclear are excessively high in America due to politics and regulations (derp I'm OP politics makes zero difference in nuclear)

Utilities in America have not and will not embrace nuclear. There is actually a big problem in American energy markets where existing nuclear plants - which should be kept online - cannot stay online because they aren't able to recover their costs on the market - they NEED subsidies from the government otherwise they will be forced to retire (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/n...t-closing.html)

Utilities will generally prefer gas-fired power plants to nuclear. Not only is gas way more economical, but the environmental impact between gas and nuclear is nearly negligible due to the low capacity factors of gas-fired power plants (especially on a grid with large amounts of wind/solar) and the regulatory environment for approving utility capital investment plans is MUCH more favorable to building gas-fired assets compared to nuclear... especially with the history of nuclear power projects in the last 10 years with VC Summer and Vogtle... things are not looking good one bit for nuclear in the US

[bibimbape]

Yep, fixed costs for nuclear are excessively high in America due to politics and regulations (derp I'm OP politics makes zero difference in nuclear)

Utilities in America have not and will not embrace nuclear. There is actually a big problem in American energy markets where existing nuclear plants - which should be kept online - cannot stay online because they aren't able to recover their costs on the market - they NEED subsidies from the government otherwise they will be forced to retire (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/n...t-closing.html)

Utilities will generally prefer gas-fired power plants to nuclear. Not only is gas way more economical, but the environmental impact between gas and nuclear is nearly negligible due to the low capacity factors of gas-fired power plants (especially on a grid with large amounts of wind/solar) and the regulatory environment for approving utility capital investment plans is MUCH more favorable to building gas-fired assets compared to nuclear... especially with the history of nuclear power projects in the last 10 years with VC Summer and Vogtle... things are not looking good one bit for nuclear in the US

Boyo go read the American Jobs Plan. Nuclear is included in the plan. JFL at thinking the US won't embrace nuclear once the rest of the developing countries do.

To OP, don't waste your time trying to convince miscers to invest in Uranium. These boyos are too balls deep into Tech and the rest o the Ponzi sector to realize that there are massive opportunities in commodities. Just like any great investing opportunity, the majority will call you an idiot at the beginning. Once this train takes off, you sell them your bags.

[bibimbape]

Yep, fixed costs for nuclear are excessively high in America due to politics and regulations (derp I'm OP politics makes zero difference in nuclear)

Utilities in America have not and will not embrace nuclear. There is actually a big problem in American energy markets where existing nuclear plants - which should be kept online - cannot stay online because they aren't able to recover their costs on the market - they NEED subsidies from the government otherwise they will be forced to retire (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/n...t-closing.html)

Utilities will generally prefer gas-fired power plants to nuclear. Not only is gas way more economical, but the environmental impact between gas and nuclear is nearly negligible due to the low capacity factors of gas-fired power plants (especially on a grid with large amounts of wind/solar) and the regulatory environment for approving utility capital investment plans is MUCH more favorable to building gas-fired assets compared to nuclear... especially with the history of nuclear power projects in the last 10 years with VC Summer and Vogtle... things are not looking good one bit for nuclear in the US

To add to your point on gas being economic and clean, I agree with that. But makes uranium compelling as an investment is the supply deficit. For devil's advocate, let's say the US abandons nuclear completely. China and India are not, and in fact they're building more.

[Destor]

We have one of the biggest nuclear plants in the world here in Canada. I’ve been seeing lots in the media lately about small modular reactors.

The world is a big place and nuclear is likely the only truly feasible solution that’ll deliver steady, reliably energy that doesn’t pump emissions into the atmosphere. I don’t know enough about it to buy right now, but I think it’ll eventually become part of the push towards long-term decarbonization. Even if it doesn’t work in the US, we haven’t started powering up swaths of Asia or Africa.

[lockdev]

lmao politics make ZERO differnce with uranium

Imagine living in 2021 and believing that politics makes no difference in the energy markets, or any market for that matter

but who were oil and coal lobbyists
but who were laws that protect the oil and coal industries
but who were corrupt politicians

Hate to say it brah, but there is no free market, especially in the energy space.

[bibimbape]

Imagine living in 2021 and believing that politics makes no difference in the energy markets, or any market for that matter

but who were oil and coal lobbyists
but who were laws that protect the oil and coal industries
but who were corrupt politicians

Hate to say it brah, but there is no free market, especially in the energy space.

Politics are about public opinion. You can play ESG both ways by buying oil and uranium. ESG starves oil of capital which ironically will fuel the next oil bull market. At the same time, ESG increases demand for nuclear power and with uranium already starved of capital for years after the Fukushima crisis, it's the cherry on top.

[ghostfacedup]

So basically, libtards are ruining our potential to use Nuclear?

[ikepen]

As an economic consultant for the electric utility industry, I can confidently say that utilities in the US will generally not be using nuclear power in our lifetimes (srs) nuclear power is a lost cause... there's lots of complex reasons for this related to politics and the regulatory environment, but the bottom line is that nuclear power is too expensive to be worth it. Even with the environment in mind, It's easier and cheaper to build an electric grid with wind/solar/batteries/gas-fired peaking plants than it is to rely on nuclear.

Without making it into an argument on the efficacy of nuclear power... it doesn't really matter, new nuclear projects simply won't be approved in the US. No utilities are planning to build nuclear and it would be very unlikely for any public utilities commission to approve a utility plan to build nuclear power. The last couple that did get approved were complete disasters that wasted tens of billions of dollars of electric ratepayer money.

that's great and all but there's the rest of the world. Uranium is not a US play.

[mulletwarrior]

Yep, fixed costs for nuclear are excessively high in America due to politics and regulations (derp I'm OP politics makes zero difference in nuclear)

Utilities in America have not and will not embrace nuclear. There is actually a big problem in American energy markets where existing nuclear plants - which should be kept online - cannot stay online because they aren't able to recover their costs on the market - they NEED subsidies from the government otherwise they will be forced to retire (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/n...t-closing.html)

Utilities will generally prefer gas-fired power plants to nuclear. Not only is gas way more economical, but the environmental impact between gas and nuclear is nearly negligible due to the low capacity factors of gas-fired power plants (especially on a grid with large amounts of wind/solar) and the regulatory environment for approving utility capital investment plans is MUCH more favorable to building gas-fired assets compared to nuclear... especially with the history of nuclear power projects in the last 10 years with VC Summer and Vogtle... things are not looking good one bit for nuclear in the US

Bruh, thanks for your insights -- always glad to hear thoughts from industry experts rather than bro-science from miscers.

Curious what your thoughts are on reports that Biden has privately signaled he will support uranium subsidiies:

https://seekingalpha.com/news/369114...lant-subsidies

[bibimbape]

News just released. Biden admin supports inclusion of nuclear for clean energy.

Train is about to leave boyos.

[bibimbape]

Bruh, thanks for your insights -- always glad to hear thoughts from industry experts rather than bro-science from miscers.

Curious what your thoughts are on reports that Biden has privately signaled he will support uranium subsidiies:

https://seekingalpha.com/news/369114...lant-subsidies

Industry insiders are often times the most inadequate at predicting future prices. Watch the utilities and fuel buyers start to panic and whine at congress when uranium prices explode.

[radrd]

Is uranium a new crypto currency? First I've heard of this but I'm definitely in.

[BulkingIsHard]

which should be kept online - cannot stay online because they aren't able to recover their costs on the market - they NEED subsidies from the government otherwise they will be forced to retire

Like green energy which also sucks the subsidies from government cock daily?

[bibimbape]

Uranium is about to go parabolic.

[DrFeeIGood]

Uranium is about to go parabolic.

why

[bibimbape]

why

Sprott is cornering the Uranium market. This chit's going to 200$/lb

[kusok]

Nouraniumcel crew checking in.

Checked CCJ chart, at all time high now and ran up 20% last week, I can’t chase this. Missed the train

Feels Batman.

[bibimbape]

Nouraniumcel crew checking in.

Checked CCJ chart, at all time high now and ran up 20% last week, I can’t chase this. Missed the train

Feels Batman.

Boyo this is just getting started

[andres93]

In to get shilled on uranium

[bibimbape]

In to get shilled on uranium

Remortgaging the house and throwing it into U.UN

Ded srs.

[knightofday]

Nuclear is cheap and safe, the only thing wrong with it is the name. Most of the politicians and general public are too stupid to understand this.

Its deeper than that, the globalist NWO has been actively fighting it on all fronts for 4-5 decades.

They are well aware nuclear can solve our energy problems like yesterday, and that's not an exaggeration srs

Once you realize there is a great conspiracy to deindustrialize the US and turn us into a serf-State, it all makes sense. All of the excuses they tell us why we cant use nuclear are lies i.e. public opinion, safety. cost etc.

Now you understand the extreme push towards renewables 100%, which have already failed massively on a much smaller scale.

It has nothing ot do with helping us and our energy needs, quite the opposite.

[BraneyGumble]

lmao politics make ZERO differnce with uranium

Good one

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN2472HN

EU lawmakers ban nuclear from green transition fund, leave loophole for gas

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union leaders are split over which fuels deserve support from the bloc’s flagship green energy fund, after lawmakers on Monday called for rules that could allow the money to be spent on some fossil gas projects.

The European Commission wants to launch a 40 billion euro ($45 billion) Just Transition Fund using cash from the bloc’s coronavirus recovery fund and its budget for 2021-27, to help carbon-intensive regions launch green industries and retrain workers currently in polluting sectors.

All EU member states agreed last week that the new fund should exclude nuclear and fossil fuels projects, including natural gas projects - a position also shared by the EU Commission.

But on Monday a committee of lawmakers leading talks on the issue in the European Parliament broke ranks. They said that while nuclear energy projects should not be eligible, some fossil gas projects could get just transition funding.

[bibimbape]

Good one

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN2472HN

EU lawmakers ban nuclear from green transition fund, leave loophole for gas

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union leaders are split over which fuels deserve support from the bloc’s flagship green energy fund, after lawmakers on Monday called for rules that could allow the money to be spent on some fossil gas projects.

The European Commission wants to launch a 40 billion euro ($45 billion) Just Transition Fund using cash from the bloc’s coronavirus recovery fund and its budget for 2021-27, to help carbon-intensive regions launch green industries and retrain workers currently in polluting sectors.

All EU member states agreed last week that the new fund should exclude nuclear and fossil fuels projects, including natural gas projects - a position also shared by the EU Commission.

But on Monday a committee of lawmakers leading talks on the issue in the European Parliament broke ranks. They said that while nuclear energy projects should not be eligible, some fossil gas projects could get just transition funding.

Who gives a chit if one fund excludes nuclear. There is zero chance any country comes close to their net zero carbon goals without nuclear. ESG is a sham and betting against it has been the definition of free alpha.