Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Uranium Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (10460)	4/17/2007 2:02:33 PM
From: mcbeanburger	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 30441

energyplay, i thought it an interesting argument not heard before. "Mining - I don't see why Uranium takes more energy than other forms of metal mining, like copper or moly. Coal will have some economy of scale, but that is maybe less than 40% - and of course we mine about only a small percent of the tonnage of coal." uranium isn't a metal (i think) - be we are talking about being carbon neutral compared to oil etc. "Purification (a very odd word choice here, the industry uses refining). Maybe for pegmatite ores with lots of rare earths. For the majority of yellowcake, process out the Vanadium and usually iron." i don't know the poster as he/she just appeared but suspect they are coming from the energy side of the argument. "Isotope separation - this is the big one of course. This process uses electricity, not carbon per se. So if we use hydro power from water that was going over the dam anyway, there's no carbon. In France, where 80% of the electricity comes from nuclear, there's no carbon." i guess it depends how the electricity is generated - his/her point is mute somewhat. cheers