RE:RE:The argument against a Uranium Bull Run Have to agree with you Destinator - there were a number of things that leap out from the article.
I do agree that well researched and articulated differing opinions are important to read though! In particular, I have mentioned before, more consistent info about retiring reactors should be included when new reactors are mentioned - the NET figure in reactors and the size/Uranium requirement of the reactors is the key. The article mentions that - fair enough.
BUT:
Mid - 2018" comment on South Korea - Umm, it is end of 1st Q 2018 now, must have meant 2017 - but, again, articles that can't get simple facts/ediiting done right are highly suspect research/writing.
South Korea - I believe they have one plant nearly completing construction and the new Pres is now softening the anti-nuclear position also.. Reality sets in. Gets expensive and pollutive to just try and change something on a whim.
France - they are already doing a U-turn on the anti-nuclear planning and did they not extend the reduction plans by a decade or more already (probably just the beginning). REality of electric car energy demands are only now coming to be realized.
- The Article seems out of date in terms of info - there have been reversals in positions there. Germany has had higher emmisions last 2 years, and i read they get some electricity from France's Nuclear ....
There are multiple debates about solar and wind truly being cheaper than nuclear - all depends on where and subsidies, etc (would agree costs are coming down with technology and scale - but same could be said about nuclear SMR's etc).
With respect to the supply side - I don't like sweeping statements about "smaller miners" ramping up production (to compare to cuts by mamoths like Cameco and Khazaks) - and then mention ONE small Australian miner who has increased production a whopping 9%. UMM, Cameco just pulled MILLIONS of pounds off market. Article writer, do the math.
and the INTENTIONS and DETERMINATION of Namibia? Yes, Namibia has a lengthy track record of being able to ramp up and take over providing a world resource (sarcasm)...Yes, they will produce Uranium - replace the pie chart of where U comes from historically - takes time - are they even a sliver on the pie chart now?
The best one is "Since 2016 there has been a sharp decline in the money invested....." - wow. It has been 15 months since 2016......and all the articles I read show plans for dozens and dozens of new reactors where the process is just starting......England, All over the Middle East, China, India, more and more newly planned reactors - even the planning stage costs money - where are the $ figures to back that up.
Not a very detailed or well backed up article - one weak example here and there is pretty sketchy.