>What is Austrian economics? mises.org/what-austrian-economics >Austrian economics books What has government done to our money (Rothbard), The mystery of banking (Rothbard), and Profit & Loss (Mises)
Where are uranium stocks going in price? Is there any more good news coming? See, basically what I need is for the green line to go up. Not down, but the total opposite of that. Just up.
It seems like a bit of a copout to say in essence that "well there are serious problems with the idea that we can power the whole world with renewable energy and batteries, but we will surely just figure it out". The core issues are as follows: >Intermittent nature of energy generation higher capacity is needed to account for shortfalls in wind or sunlight, i.e. much more windmills or solar panels or batteries are needed to be on grid than are needed to maintain baseload to act as a buffer. Translates to a need for more minerals. GTK calculates that as much as 573.4TWh needs to act as a 4-week power buffer. >General mineral intensity not only are solar and wind very material intensive in their own right, GTK has noted that as much as 2.78B tonnes of Li-ion batteries would be needed to power the world and this would far exceed known reserves. Copper reserves would be sufficient but not for many other metals. What about metal demand elsewhere, what about commodity prices and the cost of goods, wiring, etc.? Wouldn't things become extremely expensive? Even when recycling is taken into account, wouldn't most of it have to be put back into new batteries and energy generation after the old ones have to be decommissioned? >Logistics More mineral reserves can of course be discovered but can all that tonnage be mined and delivered across the globe to smelters, producers etc. on time? Now hydrogen or new tech could solve a lot of these issues but that's something we'll see in the future. Looking at the issues right now it's clear to see that going full renewables/batteries is more of a leap of faith than you seem to want to admit. I think it's easy to forecast that the world will be using more fossil fuels in 2050 than now, especially when we account for increasing energy demand.
Thomas Adams
You guys should take a listen to the late macrovoices podcast. Was pretty interesting. Also got a "NOOO HE'S A CLIMATE DENIER" comment from a Twitter fag. I've always kind of heard that there's a food crisis coming but I couldn't really grasp why. Now I'm starting to get a little uncomfortable since sounds like we have a perfect storm brewing with more mouths to feed, potash fertilizer reductions, attempts to return back to normal farming methods, etc. twitter.com/MacroVoices/status/1560382666180009985?t=fXHAoECzVCJfObdmD5fgig&s=19
Figured it is up your alley since I feel like everyone things the farming and fertilizer trade is over but honestly it could just be getting started and Russia could really continue to fuck over food production if they don't wanna deal with the wests bullshit anymore.
ah, i see they traded my ~5000 shares for 450 non-tradeable UEX shares. i'm assuming these will eventually become UEC shares, but i've never held through an acquisition before. interesting.
Cameron Kelly
>higher capacity is needed to account for shortfalls in wind or sunlight, i.e. much more windmills or solar panels or batteries are needed to be on grid than are needed to maintain baseload to act as a buffer. Translates to a need for more minerals. GTK calculates that as much as 573.4TWh needs to act as a 4-week power buffer. Intermittent production / low capacity factor means that energy storage is needed, but remember that it doesn't change the fact that every kwh produced by renewables in optimal locations is significantly cheaper than gas and coal. >Lithium Saying that current reserves aren't enough is kind of stupid because lithium demand has been so low in the past relative to what we will need. So obviously reserves are going to be relatively low as well. Companies aren't going to spend exploration dollars to build out 10000 years of reserves. Lithium isn't a scarce resource en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth's_crust You will see reserves of lithium explode in the coming years as exploration dollars have increased. >Wouldn't things become extremely expensive? No, I don't think so. People underestimate the amount of natural resources there are on earth. Worst case is mining at lower grades but it's not going to be like 1/10th the grades. Just take oil as an example, people were calling for "peak oil" 50 years ago. We have produced and used an incredible amount of oil over the years and we could keep going for a long time if we wanted to. Same with coal and others. We barely begun mining lithium, we could mine loads of it for centuries. >Even when recycling is taken into account, wouldn't most of it have to be put back into new batteries and energy generation after the old ones have to be decommissioned? Yes that's the idea. But if say 90% of materials ends up being recycled we aren't going to need to mine that much more when the system is built out, depending on population and economic growth of course.
Carson Sullivan
Mind to share what stock(s) you are in?
Samuel Mitchell
Why do you guys think URNM seems to be so much more volatile than other U stocks? Afaik it's pretty much the safest bet for investing in U but it is so much more volatile. Why?
James Sanders
>Intermittent production / low capacity factor means that energy storage is needed, but remember that it doesn't change the fact that every kwh produced by renewables in optimal locations is significantly cheaper than gas and coal. Absolutely, also in these optimal locations sunshine is abundant for most of the day and wind speeds are high and more or less constant. Location is key. It doesn't make much sense to have a solar farm up here in Finland for example, but it makes very much sense to have one in Africa or Southern Europe nearer the equator >Companies aren't going to spend exploration dollars to build out 10000 years of reserves. Lithium isn't a scarce resource I actually agree with this. There is plenty of lithium. It's metals like cobalt that are more difficult to work around >People underestimate the amount of natural resources there are on earth Maybe you're right. The reality is that the world has neglected mineral exploration these past thirty or so years as I understand, so maybe that's the main issue. So it's rather the exploration & development of these resources that will cause higher prices than a lack of existing minerals underground >Yes that's the idea. But if say 90% of materials ends up being recycled we aren't going to need to mine that much more when the system is built out, depending on population and economic growth of course. That's a very ambitious target but I certainly hope we can recycle at least half as much as that. God knows the world needs less massive open pits and landfills Vermilion Energy Birchcliff Energy Cheniere Energy (will likely sell this soon and move the money elsewhere) Verde Agritech Also some puts for shitcos like BBBY and RBLX, and loadsa dorra dorra bills
Cameron Richardson
Optimal locations is they key. Waterwheels were identical to steam engines throughout most of the industrial era, however, the steam engine won out because it could be placed anywhere and not just in some remote location allowing manufacturing to be done in population centres and not just by a river. Similar to why the internal combustion engine won out over the electric car too.
Hunter Martinez
>everyone things the farming and fertilizer trade is over Ferts have been exploding all week, whether people are talking about it or making headlines doesn't matter. Just make sure you have exposure. NTR, MOS, UAN
CF has broken the April ATH from earlier this year today too. These stocks are going to fucking boom and not look back again.
Jayden Evans
>Absolutely, also in these optimal locations sunshine is abundant for most of the day and wind speeds are high and more or less constant. Location is key. It doesn't make much sense to have a solar farm up here in Finland for example, but it makes very much sense to have one in Africa or Southern Europe nearer the equator The thing is than you can transfer energy relatively easily today. Our grids are interconnected in Europe and we already trade lots of electricity across borders. We build massive solar parks in southern Europe and send the electricity up north, same idea with wind. Even if it ends up being slightly more expensive than fossil fuels, which I don't even think it will be, it will probably happen anyway at least here in Europe because energy independence is of geopolitical importance. >I actually agree with this. There is plenty of lithium. It's metals like cobalt that are more difficult to work around Tesla Model 3s produced in China uses iron instead of nickel and cobalt I think. Again, there are always substitutions. >That's a very ambitious target Recycling is going to be a massive industry and technologies will be improved. These materials are valuable, it is going to make economic sense to take batteries to a recycling plant. I'm guessing we already recycle batteries today, and especially a large car battery is going to be worth a lot of money in scrap value.
short uranium heads up. silex (OTCQXI:SILXF) is up almost 10% today on just 200 shares. it looks like a nice company and all, i haven't decided to buy any yet, however... 263,274 shares leave escrow on the 31st and can be sold into the market. these are "options" (1 "option" = 1 share here, not 100) which is just SBC to we americans. silex does not allow the stakeholders who receive these in compensation to actually be vested in them for two years from the grant date. however, similar to real options, they'll carry a per share cost basis called an exercise price that was set when the compensation plan was approved (not even on the grant date, but before it). their annual reports publish a table of these with historical data, i assume the aussies force companies to do this. and 2+ years ago, the exercise prices were 35 cents, 35 cents, 21 cents -- then up to 57 cents in november of 2020 and a buck twenty in march 2021. what's funny though is it's that one and only slot at 21 cents where there were any on issue -- 660k of them. the two periods prior, the 35-cent options were exercised during that year, presumably before they changed to their 2-year escrow plan. while this does not represent a huge dilution, as there are 204 million outstanding, it does represent a substantial market move if they are sold into the market soon thereafter.
Christopher Campbell
yeah and fuck UEC, so, you'll want to sell those as soon as idiots rush in and drastically overprice it. management overpays themselves at truly disgusting levels.
Jack Mitchell
yes. there is 30 years of good news that won't stop coming. but with questions like that, you aren't going to be picking stocks, so go DCA into an ETF. maybe do 60/40 URA/URNM.
Thomas Cox
I don't see a reason to short something like this with such low liquidity. The fees and interest would be expensive not and the 10% pump would be of no benefit because there are no bids at that price
