Nuclear power continues in the world

[sicetaitsimple]

Suffice to say that Russia therefore controls a good half of the world's Uranium, as for gas, and almost as for oil.

Pardon? Can you specify the "good halves" for each of the three?

[Remundo]

a page or two back, you explained to us that it was negligible and that there was nothing to worry about.

I note that Russia produces 3000 to 4000 tons, and moreover, works hand in hand with Kasakhstan, a satellite country, which produces 20000 tons.

and that moreover between them, they have 20% of the world's reserves.

But you, you're like Macronie. I'm not going to develop more...well, if you want, I can, but it's going to be unpleasant.

[Ahmed]

Perhaps, Sicetaitsimple, could you answer my previous question:
"I have a (really) naive question. Nuclear requires power plants that are expensive to build, expensive to operate, but normally still produce fairly cheap electricity because, it seems, of an economical fuel: how is this last feature to be explained?
Remundo told me about the plants and found that the fuel was, quote, "not very expensive in itself, to then drift on its usual fads, without explaining in any way why this price "not very expensive".

[Remundo]

I thank you Ahmed, for an honest and courteous answer that I had made to you.

The price per ton of U3O8, precursor of enriched uranium, is around $50/kg

a 1GW power plant consumes around 200 tonnes of it per year, ie around €10 million for revenues of €400 million/year.

this is why I say that the cost of nuclear fuel is not very expensive.

So I won't bother to answer you anymore, because I only produce "my usual fads".

[Ahmed]

I only stated "facts" (as you say) and do not blame you, everyone is perfectly free to answer what suits him. That's still not the answer to my question, but thank you anyway...

[Christophe]

I thank you Ahmed, for an honest and courteous answer that I had made to you.

The price per ton of U3O8, precursor of enriched uranium, is around $50/kg

a 1GW power plant consumes about 200 tons per year, ie around 10 M€ for revenues of 400 M€/year.

this is why I say that the cost of nuclear fuel is not very expensive.

It seems to me, it's old, that I had read that the part of the price of nuclear fuel was around 1/10 of a cent per kWh...for a sale price of around €40-50/MWh we are therefore in the same order of magnitude (ratio 40, or 2.5% of the price)...

With the current crazy prices, it's even less...

But I don't know if the reprocessing is taken into account in this price...I guess not because we make future generations pay for it (as often with Boomer mentalities!)...

[Christophe]

Well, if you want, I can, but it's going to be unpleasant.

At some point, you have to know how to start...

[Ahmed]

Christophe, why be unpleasant when the messages that are have proven their ineffectiveness (it's not fooling anyone!)?
One can, with good reason, think that this is only a way of justifying an uncertain position by devaluing the words of one's interlocutor.
Putting others down is for some the only way to grow, an unflattering method for those who are reduced to this recourse...

PS: I understood the , do not worry!

[sicetaitsimple]

Perhaps, Sicetaitsimple, could you answer my previous question:

I think I'll write some small talk, but let's go!
-first to remind (cf. table posted by Remundo) that there are at least ten countries with a significant production of natural uranium, countries located in a fairly balanced way between "West" and "East". Even if Remundo seems to classify Kashakstan in the East, I notice that he has established JVs with almost everyone including western miners, not only with Rosatom.
- Then the quantities needed worldwide are not huge, since we are talking about about 50.000t/year to supply the (about) 400 reactors in operation in the world. It has of course nothing to do, but to compare, we extract about 3500 million tons of iron ore per year in the world!
- In short, "reasonable" and rather stable needs in terms of volume, fairly well-distributed producers so no OPEC-type "cartel", all of this leads to "reasonable" prices even if there have been peaks in the past. Everyone has to earn more or less a living, otherwise there would be mine closures or mothballing.
-Then come the services, in particular enrichment. Here too, there is nevertheless international competition, and therefore relative price stability. A large customer like EDF does not entrust all of its needs to a single supplier but to several, on the one hand to secure its needs in the event of a major incident at an enrichment plant, but also to play competition. Again, I think that each "enricher" earns a living.
-Finally, the manufacture of fuel. Basically it's the same, for example EDF does not buy all its fuel from Framatome (yet now a subsidiary), but also buys some from Westinghouse.

There you go... In short, a market that is generally very stable in terms of volume, balanced "geographically", so not very volatile except for a specific event. And again I think that each link in the chain pretty much earns a living, otherwise there would be facility closures.

[Christophe]

Christophe, why be unpleasant when the messages that are have proven their ineffectiveness (it's not fooling anyone!)?
One can, with good reason, think that this is only a way of justifying an uncertain position by devaluing the words of one's interlocutor.
Putting others down is for some the only way to grow, an unflattering method for those who are reduced to this recourse...

PS: I understood the , do not worry!

To say that a jerk is a jerk is not a devaluation, it's a scientific fact! And sometimes it even helps him mess around less!

ps: I haven't followed all of your confusion with Remundo, just read your last 2 messages...