Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Fission Uranium Corp T.FCU

Alternate Symbol(s):  FCUUF

Fission Uranium Corp. is a Canada-based uranium company and the owner/developer of the high-grade, near-surface Triple R uranium deposit. The Company is the 100% owner of the Patterson Lake South uranium property. Its Patterson Lake South (PLS) project, which hosts the Triple R deposit, a large, high-grade and near-surface uranium deposit that occurs within a 3.18 kilometers (km) mineralized trend along the Patterson Lake Conductive Corridor. The property comprises over 17 contiguous claims totaling 31,039 hectares and is located geographically in the south-west margin of Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin. Additionally, the Company has the West Cluff property comprising three claims totaling approximately 11,148-hectares and the La Rocque property comprising two claims totaling over 959 hectares in the western Athabasca Basin region of northern Saskatchewan. The La Rocque property is prospective for high-grade uranium and is located five km south of Cameco’s La Rocque Uranium Zone.


TSX:FCU - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Comment by Malcolm2001on Jun 29, 2018 4:23pm
159 Views
Post# 28253913

RE:Brits Going Nuclear

RE:Brits Going NuclearExcellent post Greenday.
There is a serious lesson to be learned from the UK. As an ex-operator at Bradwell Power Station I watched successive governments systematically kick the can down the road and eventually all but destroy the UK nuclear business due to nothing more than political ideology and dogma. The ranks of the labour party and some concervatives failed to grasp the obvious...England is not a sunny country most of the time. The wind does not blow all the time and to produce the power required would cover the entire country from end to end in windmills.
In parallel they also shutdown most of the coal plants leaving them with a fleet of older nuclear plants coming up to their retirement years.

THAT is why they paid EDF a third more for the power from Hinckley Point...they had no choice.

It is also not widely know that the UK had the first commercial nuclear power plants in the world...Calder Hall, Chapelcross, Berkely and Bradwell being the first of the Magnox series of plants.For my part I could not stand to see the efforts of so many talented men and women get frittered away by stupid ignorant elections focussed politicians. That is why I left the UK for Canada to help build the incredibly reliable CANDU fleet of power plants in Ontario. These reactors have ALL the features that the French now boast about for the EPR.

So, despite my obvious annoyance that the UK is now where it should have been 35 years ago...and it was as obvious then as it is now..I am at least pleased to see they have realised their expensive mistakes.

Sadly the British taxpayer is having to pay billions more to buy the technology that it was the first to commercialize.

I see the USA going down the same path. Instead of Westinghouse reactors we have South Korean and Russian and Chinese reactors being built around the world....and where do you think the fuel for those is coming from. With that fuel dependence comes political dependence and stupid people like Obama and Clinton fail to grasp its significance.

If your energy supply depends on a foreign country you can be sure the politics will follow suit. Maybe that is a good thing but it certainly is not good for the UK, or Europe or the USA. The Russians and the Chinese are smart people and they know this....but as a result of their initiatives the world will be producing much more nuclear power and therefore less CO2 and I guess I should not grumble about that.
Malcolm
Greenday wrote:

The U.K. government earmarked 200 million pounds ($262 million) to smooth the way for the next nuclear power plants just two days after rejected the case for an experimental project that would generate power from the tides.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said its Nuclear Sector Deal will fund technology and skills needed to maintain the industry that the government is backing to be part of its future energy mix. About 56 million pounds will go to help eight vendors of modular reactors carry out technical studies.

The decision puts further distance between Prime Minister Theresa May’s administration and the possibility of government support for cutting-edge renewable technologies. May’s government has scaled back subsidies for wind and solar, halted onshore wind farms and declined to back Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd.’s proposal for a 1.3 billion pound project to demonstrate its technology.

“Nuclear energy not only fuels our power supply, it fuels local jobs, wages, economic prosperity and drives U.K. innovation,” Energy Secretary Greg Clark said in a statement released by his office in London on Wednesday.

A fusion project in Culham, Oxfordshire, will receive 86 million pounds. About 62 million pounds — about half from industry — will go to streamline the supply chain and improve manufacturing techniques.

The government’s decision to back the first new nuclear plant in two decades has been criticized because of its cost. Electricite de France SA will receive 92.50 pounds for every megawatt-hour of power it generates at its Hinkley plant along Britain’s southwest coast — a third more than the current market price.

Tidal Lagoon wanted a similar payout for its power, but Clark rejected the project on the grounds that over time it would cost much more than a combination of offshore wind and nuclear plants.

Under the deal on Wednesday, the nuclear industry committed to reduce the cost of new-build projects by 30 percent by 2030.

The funding illustrates that the government is prepared to throw its weight behind the atomic plants even though Hinkley’s electricity will be more expensive than new wind farms. Earlier this month the U.K. said it was considering whether to take an equity stake in a 20 billion-pound nuclear project in Wales led by Hitachi Ltd., a move that would mark a major step away from private control of energy markets.

After coming under fire for the rate it agreed with EDF, the government wants to help Hitachi shoulder the construction risks before the plant starts producing, thereby reducing the final cost of the plant to taxpayers.

After Hinkley, EDF has plans to build more reactors at Sizewell and Bradwell. The company already thinks it can reduce the cost of the Sizewell project by 20 percent compared to Hinkley by keeping the reactor design as similar as possible but that’s still below the 30 percent target.



Bullboard Posts