Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Ok, too many words. Here's a summary:

Trial and error content-creation using generative AI, whether or not it creates any real-world value, consumes a lot of electricity.

This electricity demand is likely to translate into demand for nuclear power.

When this demand for nuclear power meets the undersupply of uranium post-Fukushima, higher uranium prices will result.






Continuing that thought, higher uranium prices and real demand will lead to unshuttering and exploiting known and proven deposits that are currently idle and increase exploration activity of known resources to advance their status to measured and modelled for economic feasiblity, along with revisiting radiometric maps to flag raw prospects for basic investigation.

More supply and lower prices will result.

Not unlike the recent few years in (say) lithium, anticipated demand surged exploration and development, actual demand didn't meet anticipated demand and a number of developed economicly feasible resources were shuttered .. still waiting in the wings for a future pickup in demand.


Spend a few months studying existing demand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...), existing supply (mines in operation, mines in care and maintenance, undeveloped mines), and the time it takes to develop a mine. Once you know the facts we can talk again.

Look at how long NexGen's Rook 1 Arrow is taking to develop (https://s28.q4cdn.com/891672792/files/doc_downloads/2022/03/...). Spend an hour listening to what Cameco said in its most recent conference call. Look at Kazatomprom's persistent inability to deliver the promised pounds of uranium, their sulfuric acid shortages and construction delays.

Uranium mining is slow and difficult. Existing demand and existing supply are fully visible. There's a gap of 20-40 million pounds per year, with nothing to fill the gap. New mines take a decade or more to develop.

It is not in the slightest like lithium.


> Spend a few months studying existing demand

Would two decades in global exploration geophysics and being behind the original incarnation of https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/industries/m... count?

> Once you know the facts we can talk again.

Gosh - that does come across badly.


Apologies.

When someone compares uranium to lithium, I know I'm not talking to a uranium expert.

All the best to you, and I'll try to be more polite in the future.


Weird .. and to think I spent several million line kms in radiometric surveys, worked multiple uranium mines, made bank on the 2007 price spike and that we published the definite industry uranium resources maps in 2006-2010.

Clearly you're a better expert.

> when someone compares uranium to lithium, I know I'm not talking to a uranium expert.

It's about boom bust and shuttering cycles that apply in all resource exploration and production domains.

Perhaps you're a little too literal for analogies? Maybe I'm thinking in longer time cycles than yourself and don't a few years of lag as anything other than a few years.


Once again, allow me to offer my sincere apologies.

You are well-prepared to familiarize yourself with the current supply/demand situation. It's time to "make bank", just like you did in 2007... only more so. The 2007 spike was during an oversupplied uranium market and mainly driven by financial actors.

I invite you to begin by listening to any recent interview with Mike Alkin.

Good night and enjoy your weekend.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: