A little insight into uranium
A little insight into uranium – Marketplace 27 march 09 – Interview with Tom Zoellner,”………………………….the Atomic Energy Commission gave these fantastic bonuses for prospectors and minors to go out into the American southwest and dig up as much of it as they could. This amounted to the last, kind of, gold rush in American history. And on the other side of the planet the Soviets were up to the same thing…………………………This is a really fascinating market, and talk about volatility. We’ve seen the price go up to 135 bucks a pound. It’s tied to perceptions of supply and demand. It’s tied to, most importantly, the prognosis for worldwide enthusiasm for nuclear power. And now with the president giving a signal that the United States is not going to rely on nuclear power as a short-term energy solution, this price is most likely going to drop further……………………………..what do you suppose the future of the uranium market is, at least in the short term? Zoellner: Dismal. Wall Street has consistently refused to finance the construction of new nuclear power and this has been the reality since the early ’80s.
Denison In Precarious Position, Time to Sell
Denison In Precarious Position, Time to Sell – RBC
Seeking Alpha 22 March 09 Denison Mines Inc. (DNN) shares continued to fall on Friday, as concerns grow that the uranium miner will violate one of its debt covenants and be forced to throw up a for-sale sign at its operations.
The company said Thursday that it will consider selling assets and has suspended operations at its Sunday and Rim mines in the Western U.S., in an attempt to combat mounting losses…………………….“We think Denison is in a very precarious position. The simplest solution to its problems is for the uranium spot prices to recover to higher than C$50 per pound. Other than that, the easiest thing for Denison to do is to sell assets,
Denison In Precarious Position, Time to Sell – RBC — Seeking Alpha
AREVA – France’s nuke power poster child has a money melt-down
France’s nuke power poster child has a money melt-down
THE FREE PRESS Harvey Wasserman March 19, 2009 The myth of a successful nuclear power industry in France has melted into financial chaos. With it dies the corporate-hyped poster child for a “nuclear renaissance” of new reactor construction that is drowning in red ink and radioactive waste.Areva, France’s nationally-owned corporate atomic fa�ade, has plunged into a deep financial crisis led by a devastating shortage of cash.Electricite de France, the French national utility, has been raided by European Union officials charging that its price-fixing may be undermining competition throughout the continent.Delays and cost overruns continue to escalate at Areva’s catastrophic Olkiluoto reactor construction project in Finland.
Areva has admitted to a $2.2 billion, or 55%, cost increase in the Finnish building site after three and a half years. The Flamanville project—the only one now being built in France—is already over $1 billion more expensive than projected after a single year under construction.In 2008, France’s nuclear power output dropped 0.1%, while wind generation rose more than 37%.Attempts to build new French reactors in the US are meeting stiffened resistance.
And the definitive failure of America’s Yucca Mountain nuke waste dump mirrors France’s parallel inability to deal with its own radioactive trash.Widely portrayed as the model of corporate success, reactor-builder Areva is desperately short of money. As it begs a bailout from its dominant owner, the French government, Areva’s mismanagement and overextension in promoting and building new reactors has wrecked its image in worldwide capital markets.
According to Mycle Schneider, Paris-based author of “Nuclear Power in France—Beyond the Myth,” Areva shares have plunged by over 60% since June 2008, twice as much as the CAC40, the standard indicator of the 40 largest French companies on the stock market…………….
…………….At the French heart of its “renaissance,” the nuclear clock is winding down, not up. Time is running out for a radioactive technology that, after fifty years, remains unable to muster a sustainable level of private financing, shows no real promise of ever paying for itself, and has now plunged into deepening financial chaos.
French state faces quandary with Areva
International Herald Tribune
By Marie Maitre Reuters
March 16, 2009
The French state faces a multibillion euro funding shortfall at the nuclear power company, Areva, and needs to take bold steps to keep it at the forefront of a global revival in nuclear power.
The government could raise hundreds of millions of euros by selling Areva’s financial investments or bringing in new investors, people with direct knowledge of the matter say.
But analysts said that such moves would not suffice to finance Areva’s medium-term ambitions.
………………… Areva needs €2.7 billion for capital expenditure in 2009 and another €7 billion for investments between 2010-2012. The money is for modernizing or building new production facilities, financing research and development for new nuclear reactors, and expanding its mining activities.
Areva also needs cash to finance the process of licensing its new-generation nuclear reactors in countries like Britain and the United States. Areva also needs at least €2 billion to buy back Siemens’s 34 percent stake in a reactor joint venture, under a previous agreement.
………………. observers said it might be a tough act to balance, adding that it was impossible to know whether the government would, in the end, opt for bold measures or the bare minimum……………….
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/16/business/deal.php
Nuke French kiss to Canada?
Nuke French kiss
AECL could lose deal to build Ontario reactors to foreign firm
“…………………………..Documents obtained by the Canadian Press show over $1 billion of public funds going to the agency just in this year and last.That includes over $400 million directly into designing the new Candu.Finally, there is a growing consensus in the industry that the Ontario reactor deal is pretty well do or die for Atomic Energy.If the Ontario contract goes to one of the other bidders — the French giant Areva, or Westinghouse owned by Toshiba — so likely will the other Canadian deals.On the flip side, any government investing billions in a new reactor will naturally want to be sure it is the best value for taxpayers’ money — and that it works.AECL’s record of over-budget projects is so profound that it is doubtful any provincial government would order a Candu without a federal guarantee against cost overruns……………………………………….
Nuke French kiss | Greg Weston | Columnists | Comment | Winnipeg Sun
Paladin Energy chairman sells 500,000 shares – Insiders – FP Trading Desk
Paladin Energy chairman sells 500,000 shares – Insiders Financial Post Trading Desk March 10, 2009, by Jonathan RatnerUranium, Market Call, SEDI, Insiders, PaladinRick Crabb, chairman at Paladin Energy Ltd., sold 500,000 company shares through Rick Wayne Crabb and Carol Jean Crabb between Feb. 27 and March 6, 2009. These shares were sold for prices ranging from $2.29 to $2.45 each, bringing these holdings to 4,698,050 shares. Paladin………… focuses on uranium projects in Africa and Australia, ……….
……… In an interview with WA Business News last week, Mr. Crabb said his recent share sales were part of an effort to improve his “personal balance sheet” …………………………………
Paladin Energy chairman sells 500,000 shares – Insiders – FP Trading Desk
AREVA in trouble?
Areva May Sue Siemens on Nuclear Deal With Rosatom, Figaro Says
By Francois de Beaupuy
March 4 (Bloomberg) — Areva SA may sue Siemens AG because it agreed to create a venture with Rosatom Corp. to design, build and operate nuclear power plants, Le Figaro said, citing people close to Areva it didn’t name.
Siemens, which decided earlier this year that it would sell its 34 percent stake in a nuclear reactor building venture with Areva, must respect a clause that prevents it from competing with the French company on nuclear issues until 2020, the newspaper said.
Japan – nuclear power woes
Hiccups causing major delays at nuclear plant THE ASAHI SHIMBUN BY EISUKE SASAKI AND HIDENORI TSUBOYA 3 March 09 “……………….technical failures, responsible for yet another delay in two- decade-old efforts to launch the plant, are far from last-minute crinkles.
Not only have they proved frustratingly difficult to iron out, the problems at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, conceived as a major link in Japan’s nuclear fuel recycling program, could shake the program to its foundations.
Plant operator Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. (JNFL) announced Jan. 30 it would postpone the end of testing from February to August–the 16th time it has delayed completion of the plant, which was originally due to go into full operation more than a decade ago, in 1997.
The technical troubles affecting one of its two glass melting furnaces, built to treat complex, heat-generating radioactive materials so that they can be buried safely in the ground, continue to confound JNFL.
When in operation, the Rokkasho plant will reprocess spent fuel from nuclear power stations in Japan to extract plutonium, which will be burned again to generate electricity. But the latest delay could jeopardize the nation’s nuclear fuel recycling policy.
The last five delays were due to malfunctions that occurred in the furnace in the process of vitrifying the liquid high-level radioactive waste…………………the Rokkasho plant employs technology developed in France,……………………Meanwhile, Japan’s fuel recycling program has come under scrutiny from the international community, which has asked questions about the country’s handling of weapons-grade plutonium. Among non-nuclear nations, Japan is the only country allowed under the international nonproliferation regime to produce plutonium in its reprocessing plant………………………….will leave a vast quantity of weapons-grade plutonium from the 31 tons already possessed by Japan–25 tons of which are in storage in Britain and France, where Japan sent spent fuel to be reprocessed from the 1980s, and 6 tons in Japan…………………the changing international political climate could affect Japan’s plans. Under the new administration of President Barack Obama, the United States will likely shift away from its nuclear fuel recycling policy.
asahi.com（朝日新聞社）：Hiccups causing major delays at nuclear plant – English
Russian “Nuclear Renaissance” Hits Roadblock
Russian “Nuclear Renaissance” Hits Roadblock msnbc Business 27 Feb 09 Financial resources and technical capabilities thwart ambitious plans Russia’s ambitions for its “nuclear renaissance” face many obstacles, concludes a report released today by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI).
The Russian Nuclear Industry: Status and Prospects provides a detailed analysis of the current state of the nuclear power industry in Russia and shows that although this industry has recently been greeted with renewed funding and enthusiasm, achieving its ambitious plans will require it to overcome considerable problems and limitations.
“Continuing a tendency from Soviet-era days, the Russian government has shown a predilection for developing grandiose plans for the expansion of the nuclear energy sector that are not fulfilled,” writes Miles Pomper, author of the paper. “While the first post-Soviet nuclear plans called for a total of 38 new nuclear reactors to be built, only three have actually been constructed and with capabilities that are not superior or even equal to its Western competitors.”
Russian “Nuclear Renaissance” Hits Roadblock – MSNBC Wire Services – msnbc.com
Anti-nuclear, not anti-development
Anti-nuclear, not anti-development FAIRVIEW POST 26 Feb 09 “………………….. I am all for the development of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, bio-gas and smart grids. I am definitely not in favor of more money spent on nuclear power. I am against being responsible for the costs associated with the storage of the nuclear waste associated with this proposal. The nuclear industry should pay those costs, the taxpayer shouldn’t have to. I am against being responsible for any capital cost overruns that a nuclear facility runs up. They should have to foot the bill just like any other industry, the taxpayer shouldn’t have to. How many people are even aware of the fact that capital cost overruns for the nuclear industry in Canada come right out of taxpayer’s pockets? The nuclear industry in Canada has been operating at a loss since it’s inception, relying on constant taxpayer handouts to stay afloat.
Putting a leaky nuclear facility in the midst of 25,000 area residents is not a good idea. According to the information sessions I attended, Bruce Power is planning on storing radioactive waste on site. What guarantee can they give us that our groundwater will not be affected? According to a site called the Bruce Centre for Energy Research and Information, which is located in the heart of Bruce County, the Bruce nuclear complex has two radioactive waste storage sites that are leaking tritium into groundwater monitoring wells. Groundwater sampling holes from Site 1 have in the past exceeded 203,500 Bq/L for tritium. The report states that the waste from site 1 is being moved to site 2, and that one groundwater sampling hole at site 2 has recently exceeded 12,000 Bq/L. In Canada the “safe” amount of tritium in drinking water is 7,000 Bq/L (versus 740 in the States, and 100 in Europe). I, like many people in our area, get my water straight from the ground. What would a leak like those mentioned do to the local water supply?
So, am I anti-development? Not on your life. Bring on all the green, renewable, clean energy sources we can develop, like solar, and wind, and bio-gas. Am I anti nuclear? You bet I am. Nuclear power in Ontario has shown itself to be a money-sucking black hole, relying on a constant stream of taxpayers’ cash to stay afloat. So why would anyone but a bunch of business people want a toxic dinosaur erected here? Develop something modern, stop flogging a dying horse.
Dan Streeter, Grimshaw
Anti-nuclear, not anti-development – Fairview Post – Alberta, CA
Nuclear power: The next bailout
Nuclear power: The next bailout
Central Penn Business Journal By Eric Epstein
2/23/2009 – “……………………
Jim Rubens, former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, observed, “My party, the Republican party, is too deep in bed with the coal, oil and electric utility industries to remember its free market principles.”
Turns out politicians from both parties know what’s best after all. Welcome to this century’s version of corporate socialism.
Since Wall Street deferred, Congress and former President Bush approved nuclear loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In December 2007, $18.5 billion was set aside in federal loan guarantees. An additional $2 billion was allocated for new uranium enrichment. And nuclear power companies were guaranteed $2 billion in federal insurance to cover construction delays caused by court challenges or any other distraction outside “normal business risks.”
The Department of Energy actually admitted that $18.5 billion would build just two new reactors. The program is over subscribed with $75 billion in requests.
Is there exposure for Joe Q. Taxpayer?
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) considers the risk of default on government nuclear plant loan guarantees “to be very high – well above 50 percent.” In a report issued on May 7, the CBO concluded the risk of default by private companies comes from the expectation that a new nuclear plant “would be uneconomic to operate because of high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources.”
Florida trying to undo nuclear plant financing
Florida trying to undo nuclear plant financing Georgia lawmakers weigh similar bill this week
AJC February 23, 2009By MARGARET NEWKIRK The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Monday, February 23, 2009 As Georgia lawmakers push forward with a nuclear financing bill this week, their counterparts in Florida are scrambling to undo a similar measure approved three years ago. In the past two weeks, Florida Republicans, including the state Senate president pro tem, drafted two bills aimed at a 2006 law requiring power customers to pay early for new nuclear reactors………………..
SB 31 would let the utility begin collecting $1.6 billion in project financing charges six years earlier, when construction begins.
The charges include about $600,000 in debt interest and $1 billion in “return on equity” — roughly, profit — for Georgia Power shareholders.
The Pebble Bed Modular Nuclear Reactor – a black hole for public funds
No Amount of Redesign Will Save the PBMR
Earthlife Africa Tristen Taylor
18th of Feb. 2009
With the PBMR Company seeking to redesign the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
(PBMR) to focus more on heat applications, it is imperative to note that
disadvantages of continuing with the PBMR remain.
The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor has become a black hole for public funds. The
costs involved in the PBMR saga are illustrative of the financial risks
inherent in nuclear power in general.
In 1999, the PMBR (165MW capacity) construction costs were budgeted at R2
billion. By 2005, these construction costs had risen by a factor of seven,
to R14 billion without a single PBMR being constructed. These costs do not
include the decommissioning costs, which will be considerable.
Based upon the 2008 Environmental Impact Assessment for the PBMR
Demonstration Reactor and the decommissioning costs for of the predecessor
to the PBMR-the German AVR-the costs to decommission a single PBMR range
from R1.5 billion to R70 billion. It is nearly impossible, due to the
lifespan of the reactor and the variable rates of contamination, to be more
exact than this. Hence, the decommissioning costs of the PBMR are uncertain
and could incur a heavy burden on future generations, absorbing funds for
vital social programmes.
An additional expense will be the waste storage costs, which are impossible
to calculate due to the long-term nature of storing waste; for example,
uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years, plutonium-239 a half-life
of 24,110 years, and caesium a half-life of 30.2 years. These kinds of
timeframes defy economic planning, and, given our pressing social needs,
should not be entertained.
The costs for the PBMR are not efficient in terms of power generation. For
example, Eskom is seeking finance of R5 billion to build a concentrated
solar plant (100MW) in the Northern Cape; R14 billion for 165MW or R5
billion for 100MW capacity, economic sense favours the solar plant. This
also excludes the costs associated with the security apparatus necessary for
the PMBR.
Nuclear materials and equipment need to be protected and highly regulated,
due to the threat of contamination and theft. The consequences of
radioactive material in the hands on malicious organisations could have
profoundly negative consequences and has to be avoided at all costs. While
currently unquantifiable at this stage, these security costs will be passed
onto the state and are unique to nuclear power. Other forms of energy
generation (including heat generation) do not require these increased
security costs.
No matter how much the PBMR Company and the Department of Minerals and
Energy seek to spin the matter, the PBMR has been a waste of vital public
funds and will continue to be so until abandoned.
Georgia Power nuclear plan called ‘lousy’
Georgia Nuclear Power Plan Called “Lousy”Creative loafing 16 Feb 09 In 1974, Georgia Power broke ground on nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, embarking on a nuclear odyssey that would nearly bankrupt the company.Almost 15 years later — and after several delays and environmental hurdles— the project’s construction costs ballooned from $680 million to a staggering $8.4 billion.
And it wasn’t until then that Georgia Power could begin to recoup the cost from ratepayers.
Now, as the state’s largest utility moves forward on two new reactors at Plant Vogtle estimated at $6.4 billion, the first in nearly 30 years, the company wants to cover its assets — and it’s enlisted the assistance of a phalanx of lobbyists and a controversial legislative plan of attack.Introduced by state Sen. Don Balfour, R-Snellville, Senate Bill 31 would allow Georgia Power to begin charging customers — you and me — in advance for two new proposed nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. The bill passed the state Senate last week and now moves to the House.
Victory! $50 Billion for Toxic Nuclear Pork Cut from Stimulus Bill
Victory! $50 Billion for Toxic Nuclear Pork Cut from Stimulus Bill
Beyond Nuclear 13 Feb 09
Congressional negotiators in the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed late Wednesday evening (February 11) on a $789 billion stimulus bill but killed an attempt to squander $50 billion on new nuclear reactors. The agreement, made in the conference committee, axed a proposal from Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) to include $50 billion in pork barrel federal loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. The Congressional Budget Office stated earlier this year that nuclear utilities would default on more than 50% of the loans, leaving taxpayers and ratepayers to foot the bill.”This is a big victory for common sense and the American taxpayer,” said Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear who helped lead the campaign on Capitol Hill to cut the $50 billion for nuclear power. “This toxic nuclear pork had no place in a bill designed to put Americans back to work and and salvage our economy. Our legislators are to be applauded for getting their priorities right and saying no to yet another blatant attempt to prop up an industry that has never stood on its own financial feet.”The nuclear industry has received an estimated $500 billion in public subsidies over the past half century,” Kamps continued. “This monumental waste of money had to end. The nuclear industry cannot solve the climate crisis and fattening the nuclear calf has deprived real energy solutions like renewable energy and energy efficiency programs of essential support for decades.”
1 This Month
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- October 2026 (58)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Your Comments
View/Leave Comment
Greg Weston get your facts straight. The reactor (European Pressurized Reactor) that Areva is currently building in Finland is 3 years late, 50% over budget and still not done yet. Areva has only sold 4 of these European Pressurized Reactors in the past. One to Finland, one to France and two to China. You were only off by 96 when you said Areva has built 100 of these already. Not to mention that Teollisuuden Voima, the Finnish company that purchased the reactor, is seeking damages of $3.9 billion because of the delays thus far. Also, Siemens, the German company that partnered with Teollisuuden Voima on this Finnish project, is now looking to pull out because of all of the problems with construction.
E.B., March 12th 2009, 2:08pm