Welcome To The Uranium General Discussion Forum On AGORACOM
Edit this title from the Fast Facts Section
Message: Canaccord Late Edition on Uranium, Japan and outlook
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 8.8px Arial} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 9.0px Arial}
CAMECO CORP. HATHOR EXPLORATION URANIUM ONE
(T-CCO) (V-HAT) (T-UUU)
$30.97 -0.56 $2.01 -0.04 $4.39 +0.01
It was probably over a hundred years ago, we hypothesis that a significant event happened in New York, and we can only guess at how it was written up at the time, and how people reacted to it.
It would have been the first car accident and we are sure people were appalled at the devastation, and tragedy of the time, and commentary that we should be going back to the horse and buggy (which wasn't 100% safe either) but they couldn't halt the progress of the time because of one enor- mous health issue.
At that time in New York like other big cities, the big con- cern was thousands of tons of horse droppings accumulat- ing on the streets every day, and it was becoming a terrible health risk. The car has seen its technology improve over the years dramatically, so that at this time, it is much safer, and much more fuel efficient, and finally exhaust fumes are nowhere near as dangerous as the droppings of 300 million horses might be.
The analogy is far from perfect, the nuclear disaster in Japan is similar...as a fuel like nuclear is hard to replace, as it is the energy that provides the world’s juice for 20% to 25 % of our use and to have it replaced at this time is next to impossible, and if we tried rates for power would sky-rocket. Alternatives simply do not exist. What we need though is the next generation of nuclear, that is safer and hopefully more efficient.
Japan has just reconfirmed its relationship with nuclear power, but then it has little choice...it has to import any en- ergy it might use, and nuclear is the most efficient.
You might find this article of interest:
One of the world's leading environmental campaigners, George Monbiot, has changed his view on nuclear energy to one of strong support following the Fukushima emergency in Japan.
"As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology," Monbiot wrote in his latest column in The Guardian.
"A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The elec- tricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down.
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 8.8px Arial}
"The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation." Monbiot is one of the environmental movement's most respected thinkers. In 1995, Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement. He has written several best- selling books including Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burn- ing and The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order. In response to Fukushima, Monbiot said some greens had wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollu- tion. He said other forms of energy production caused damage and the impact of nuclear accidents had been over- stated. He quoted a website showing the Three Mile Island disaster had given someone living within 16km of the plant a 1/625th of the maximum yearly radioactive exposure per- mitted for US radiation workers. "If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work." Monbiot said, like most greens, he fa- voured a major expansion of renewables but could also sympathise with their opponents. "It's not just the onshore windfarms that bother people," he said "but also the new grid connections." Monbiot said the impacts and costs of renewables rose with the proportion of power they sup- plied, as the need for storage and redundancy increased. Monbiot said the energy source most economies would revert to if they shut down their nuclear plants was not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuels. "On every meas- ure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, indus- trial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. "Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. "Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power." Most uranium stocks have been clobbered and we con- tinue to nibble at those that will be players down the road, and those that have lots of money in the bank. Technical analyst Bob Hoye is a fan of the strategy, but cautions us that it might take a few months...
1 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply