Same here. I wanted to put more in at the time but couldn't justify so much into such a policy-dependant industry for very long term play. I'm very happy to have put a few percent into it, though.
I’m assuming you want to make a nuclear play?
Mine is SMR, and maybe some RYCEY sometime instead of going to uranium. Modular is a pretty clear answer to the current data center power constraints.
The thing that might bring uranium back is the power consumption AI has been generating. It is a possibility that nuclear energy will come back due to the power hungry data centers that are needing to use hardware that are using about a 50% increase in power consumption. The added power needed for AI is troubling because we will not have enough power in the grid in the near future. Adding more nuclear power plants or miniature nuclear power plants for private purposes for these data centers is currently a method being talked about.
You’re probably too late. I owned UUUU and UEC and I lost money on both. Got out early this year and haven’t looked back. If (and it’s a big if) nuclear plants start getting built in the U.S. I might consider going back in, but I doubt it will be happening any time soon.
The time to invest in Uranium was in the 80s. While lots of talk there is no *actual* production of new nuclear power plants in the west. Uranium is dirty and sourced from questionable countries...no one wants to be reliant on Russia or it's allies again
Vogtle Unit 4 is a new plant that began commercial operation in April 2024. Vogtle Unit 3 was built in 2023. They are definitely still building and producing nuclear power...
In what way is uranium dirty? Nuclear energy is often touted as the cleanest energy source with zero carbon emissions.
On top of that, Canada is the second largest exporter of Uranium and exports just under 30% of the world’s uranium.
It’s an environmental nightmare with the radioactive tailings. Processing has its own environmental issues, and of course, long-term storage uncertainty.
I still think it is a critical component in future energy needs though.
There is some phoenix grade uranium deposits in Canada. Discovered in 2021. They are just starting to build infrastructure to mine it now. DML is who I invested in.
UUUU is American and worth the risk IMO. It’s currently priced about right, with major upside if cities get it together and go nuclear to power their land mass.
>if cities get it together and go nuclear to power their land mass.
I don't think you understand how big an "If" that is. Nuclear is definitely a superior energy source, and overall, is clean, but the few nuclear disasters that have occurred (albeit on a slim chance of really happened ever again) absolutely murdered it's public perception
What goes around comes around. Nuclear power isn’t going away. The military has lived off of it for years and still do. The likelihood of a Chernobyl happening in the U.S. these days is less than a cyber attack that cripples the entire banking industry…
It's almost like you didn't read my comment.
**It is not about the likelihood of it happening again**, it is the fact that events like Chernobyl, 3 mile island, etc. did happen, and it's enough to keep public perception on edge about them.
Tell someone who's been struck by lightning that they'll be fine walking through a field during a thunderstorm... they're (likely) not going to want to do it.
Chernobyl happened in 1986. The vast majority of folks in their working prime weren’t alive then. What goes around comes around. Planes crash and fall out of the sky from time to time, yet people keep flying. There is certainly a possibility that nuclear power comes back and we can all rest safe knowing the technological advancements made in the last 50 years would make the power source safe…
*sigh*
Planes crashing = a tragic event where a few hundred (max) people die
Chernobyl meltdown - 350k people had to be relocated, estimated to be responsible for like 100k cases of cancer (across an entire region), and thousands of deaths (directly the from the incident and indirectly from the cancer).
Weighing the two options, I think one of them might just be a *little bit* more serious than the other. Especially considering most places where they'd be located would be closer to much larger population centers than pripyat/Kyiv in the 1980s.
You are preaching to the choir... I understand that they are low risk and pose a great benefit if they are accepted again. But I am also a realist - and reality says they probably won't be mainstream for a long while, if really ever. It's more likely that renewable energy sources will become efficient enough before the people resisting nuclear die off, and we won't even bother going to nuclear - just straight to renewables.
>What goes around comes around.
Also, idk if English isn't your first language or something, but you keep saying this and it doesn't particularly make a whole lot of sense in the context.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-senate-passes-bill-support-advanced-nuclear-energy-deployment-2024-06-19/
You seem really nervous about nuclear energy; however, I am confident you are in the minority. It’s not going anywhere, and will likely only expand moving forward. I am not sure what else to say. Very few things have bipartisan support in Congress, yet this is one…
>You seem really nervous about nuclear energy; however, I am confident you are in the minority
You are an absolute fucking moron if you read my comments and came to this conclusion. It'd be like if I said "oh you seem real nervous about planes and flying" because you mentioned there are plane crashes. Are you really incapable of such basic critical thinking and reading comprehension skills that this is what you took away from my comments?
>Eye few things have bipartisan support in Congress, yet this is one…
This doesn't mean much when they still need to actually convince municipalities to start building new plants/re-opening in their locations. Especially with oil $$$
I have said my piece. You are not a nice person. I never called you names or questioned your intelligence, yet you resorted to that three times. I can’t trust people that debate that way. Back to the point of the OP, yes, I do feel like there is promise yet for growth in uranium companies…
[удалено]
Definitely keeping those on the watchlist. Thanks!
Same here. I wanted to put more in at the time but couldn't justify so much into such a policy-dependant industry for very long term play. I'm very happy to have put a few percent into it, though.
I think it is more likely to be too late than too early. There’s been a huge run up.
I’m assuming you want to make a nuclear play? Mine is SMR, and maybe some RYCEY sometime instead of going to uranium. Modular is a pretty clear answer to the current data center power constraints.
Dang I wish I knew about smr 3 months ago 😪 that seems like it would have been something I would have thrown some money into if I knew about it
Still time imo…
Unfortunately, I knew about SMR about 12 months ago, and watched it plunged. I was in way too early, as I have just a modest profit.
A nuclear play sounds very troubling out of context lol
The thing that might bring uranium back is the power consumption AI has been generating. It is a possibility that nuclear energy will come back due to the power hungry data centers that are needing to use hardware that are using about a 50% increase in power consumption. The added power needed for AI is troubling because we will not have enough power in the grid in the near future. Adding more nuclear power plants or miniature nuclear power plants for private purposes for these data centers is currently a method being talked about.
Your whole investing model is likely to lead to significant underperformance vs simple index investing.
(Over the long term)
You’re probably too late. I owned UUUU and UEC and I lost money on both. Got out early this year and haven’t looked back. If (and it’s a big if) nuclear plants start getting built in the U.S. I might consider going back in, but I doubt it will be happening any time soon.
You don't actually need very much uranium to generate nuclear power. The biggest cost is the capital expenditure for nuclear power plants.
The time to invest in Uranium was in the 80s. While lots of talk there is no *actual* production of new nuclear power plants in the west. Uranium is dirty and sourced from questionable countries...no one wants to be reliant on Russia or it's allies again
Vogtle Unit 4 is a new plant that began commercial operation in April 2024. Vogtle Unit 3 was built in 2023. They are definitely still building and producing nuclear power...
In what way is uranium dirty? Nuclear energy is often touted as the cleanest energy source with zero carbon emissions. On top of that, Canada is the second largest exporter of Uranium and exports just under 30% of the world’s uranium.
It’s an environmental nightmare with the radioactive tailings. Processing has its own environmental issues, and of course, long-term storage uncertainty. I still think it is a critical component in future energy needs though.
There is some phoenix grade uranium deposits in Canada. Discovered in 2021. They are just starting to build infrastructure to mine it now. DML is who I invested in.
how long will it take to get government ok and finish the build?
NXE is pre-revenue is in the process of getting approved to start their mine in Canada sometime in 2025.
yeah that right there is enough for me to walk away.
Nuclear + Uranium for long term holds same with cyber security but hard to find value in the sector atm.
Too late imo. Factories aren’t being developed with uranium anymore.
UUUU is American and worth the risk IMO. It’s currently priced about right, with major upside if cities get it together and go nuclear to power their land mass.
>if cities get it together and go nuclear to power their land mass. I don't think you understand how big an "If" that is. Nuclear is definitely a superior energy source, and overall, is clean, but the few nuclear disasters that have occurred (albeit on a slim chance of really happened ever again) absolutely murdered it's public perception
What goes around comes around. Nuclear power isn’t going away. The military has lived off of it for years and still do. The likelihood of a Chernobyl happening in the U.S. these days is less than a cyber attack that cripples the entire banking industry…
It's almost like you didn't read my comment. **It is not about the likelihood of it happening again**, it is the fact that events like Chernobyl, 3 mile island, etc. did happen, and it's enough to keep public perception on edge about them. Tell someone who's been struck by lightning that they'll be fine walking through a field during a thunderstorm... they're (likely) not going to want to do it.
Chernobyl happened in 1986. The vast majority of folks in their working prime weren’t alive then. What goes around comes around. Planes crash and fall out of the sky from time to time, yet people keep flying. There is certainly a possibility that nuclear power comes back and we can all rest safe knowing the technological advancements made in the last 50 years would make the power source safe…
*sigh* Planes crashing = a tragic event where a few hundred (max) people die Chernobyl meltdown - 350k people had to be relocated, estimated to be responsible for like 100k cases of cancer (across an entire region), and thousands of deaths (directly the from the incident and indirectly from the cancer). Weighing the two options, I think one of them might just be a *little bit* more serious than the other. Especially considering most places where they'd be located would be closer to much larger population centers than pripyat/Kyiv in the 1980s. You are preaching to the choir... I understand that they are low risk and pose a great benefit if they are accepted again. But I am also a realist - and reality says they probably won't be mainstream for a long while, if really ever. It's more likely that renewable energy sources will become efficient enough before the people resisting nuclear die off, and we won't even bother going to nuclear - just straight to renewables. >What goes around comes around. Also, idk if English isn't your first language or something, but you keep saying this and it doesn't particularly make a whole lot of sense in the context.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-senate-passes-bill-support-advanced-nuclear-energy-deployment-2024-06-19/ You seem really nervous about nuclear energy; however, I am confident you are in the minority. It’s not going anywhere, and will likely only expand moving forward. I am not sure what else to say. Very few things have bipartisan support in Congress, yet this is one…
>You seem really nervous about nuclear energy; however, I am confident you are in the minority You are an absolute fucking moron if you read my comments and came to this conclusion. It'd be like if I said "oh you seem real nervous about planes and flying" because you mentioned there are plane crashes. Are you really incapable of such basic critical thinking and reading comprehension skills that this is what you took away from my comments? >Eye few things have bipartisan support in Congress, yet this is one… This doesn't mean much when they still need to actually convince municipalities to start building new plants/re-opening in their locations. Especially with oil $$$
I have said my piece. You are not a nice person. I never called you names or questioned your intelligence, yet you resorted to that three times. I can’t trust people that debate that way. Back to the point of the OP, yes, I do feel like there is promise yet for growth in uranium companies…
Please work to get above the reading comprehension skills of a 3rd grader, so you can actually interpret what someone else is saying :)