Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Denison (DNN) (CCJ) (SO) (USU) Trade Mixed as Nuclear Settles Down

Shares of uranium and nuclear companies Southern Company (NYSE:SO), USEC Inc. (NYSE:USU), Denison Mines Corp (AMEX:DNN) and Cameco Corporation (NYSE:CCJ) are trading mixed after the early shock of the nuclear disaster in Japan from the earthquake are gradually winding down.

The headlines that imply that somehow the nuclear sector was going to be cut and replaced by other so-called "green" energy is nonsense, as solar and wind turbines are a poor and unpredictable source of energy, and will never be able to supply, or come close to supplying the growing energy needs of the world.

While it's a no brainer the industry will go over safety measures to ensure the highest safety levels possible, to use a rare occurrence like an 8.9 earthquake as the worst case scenario isn't going to happen in the nuclear industry, even though the sector will be safer and better for making any improvements they are able to.

USEC closed Tuesday at $4.34, gaining $0.03, or 0.70 percent. Cameco Corporation closed at $28.43, jumping $0.31, or 1.10 percent. Denison Mines Corp. ended the trading day at $2.29, level with Monday's close. Southern Company closed at $38.19, down $0.09, or 0.24 percent.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

You mean "poor and unpredictable" like reactors that take 15 years from order to completion, get canceled because they cost $15 billion or more apiece, experience unforeseen problems requiring long idle times, and then take 5 other reactors with them in catastrophes? That kind of "poor and unpredictable"?

Nuclear is on the upswing of its cost curve while the costs of wind and solar are constantly falling, already beating nuclear quite definitively. By the time a new reactor is completed it will be out of the cost ballpark.

That is why the industry is dead.

Anonymous said...

No, more like how each windmill and each solar panel both consume more energy than they'll ever make in their entire lifetime.

As if that's not enough to denounce those "sources" (*read* blackholes) of energy, they'd need to cover every square mile of the planet to produce enough electricity to power civilization at CURRENT levels of energy demand. FYI, the wind don't blow, and the sun don't shine every square mile on the planet, nor can windmills and solar panels be installed there.

Anonymous said...

Nuclear has 4,000,000 times the energy density of both wind and solar combined. It is also 1,000,000 times more efficient than coal, and 500,000 times more efficient than oil or natural gas.

But until the U.S. pulls their heads out like Asia and France already have, I'm long coal and oil, and I'm using this nice "little" discount to enter Uranium.

Anonymous said...

All of these people wanting to "go green" need to get their heads out of their asses. Nuclear power is the only realistic form of "clean" energy available. Solar and wind have potential, but the technology isn't there yet. Right now, they are nothing but a pipe dream. They both require acres and acres of panels/windmills and that will only produce a fraction of what a typical nuclear reactor or coal fired plant does. The U.S. is falling behind the curve. Europe and Asia are far ahead.

Anonymous said...

18,000lbs of steel and copper to make one windmill that is a max of 35% efficient while it's running during it's 10 year max life span.

The 18,000 lbs of metals have to be mined, then smelted with coal fired plants, and then the muliple massive pieces shipped via multiple diesel consuming transports to remote windy locations.

Long roads must be built to those remote locations with more mined aggregate, and diesel consuming heavy equipment.

At those locations they must then be raised on large concrete slabs, and then connected to the grid via multiple miles (due to remote locations) of copper.

Very instensive use of resources. Get the picture? The general wannabee greenee public hasn't. The U.S. hasn't either...or have they?

Long: Coal, potash, aggregate, steel, oil, gas, copper, and Uranium (with the discount).

Anonymous said...

and CAT

Anonymous said...

Same story with solar panels...except for the heavy metals involved. They must be mined, and then also disposed of after the panel burns out in 10 years.

If, due to perception, Carter hadn't made it illegal in the 70's, we could be recycling nearly 100% of nuclear energy byproducts, just like they do over the pond.

Also, when dreaming solar, don't forget the supply/demand economics with the silicon industry. Want to see your standard desktop computer price upwards of $5k again? ...keep pushing solar.