AWM is Marxe and Greenhouse and we all know that they are the ones that are as an institutional buyer keeping LTBR operating. By news I mean something new, not the offering that occurred back in Nov. and did nothing to (warrant)s included garner any investing interest in the company. Get your pinhead out of your Biobutt. And yes, I trim and groom daily.
I'm still waiting, having made 1 buy at $1.29 I think there is time, but I might be wrong. The short interest has swelled but there are 2 reasons to short. 1. Because you can and it's pressure alone is the push. 2. You actually see something.
I honestly don't know enough about their technology to decide. So I'm sitting LONG on a tiny buy and I'll bring in more if I see it squeezing.
Ya know, when I'm walking thru a casino and I see that red has come up on the roulette 7 straight times, I'm just compelled to go drop $100 on black.
If there were an alien invasion or zombies apololapis seth and me would be around.
he is a survivor for sure....but he doesn't have a ring yet...
took alot off the table....but didn't sell a share of meip. Added mo ltbr
lower positions on ipci...anth.......cur....
I think the markets pushed them alittle to hi and a little to early.
ill have to buy them bavk as well as nlnk.. I lwlg.....and some trades I'm forgetting
I can also remove hair from me ears
this must be an age thing. Cd...you must have a few inches of hair hanging out of your ears.
Nuclear Power Needs to Double to Curb Global Warming
Experts suggest that without nuclear power the world has little chance of restraining global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius
Nuclear power expansion overall in the U.S. is expected to be flat in the coming years because of high costs of new nuclear development and the low cost of natural gas from shale, a formidable and quickly growing competitor to nuclear and coal for electric power generation. The report says that makes it unlikely nuclear will play a significant role in U.S. climate strategy anytime soon.
“It’s obviously not going to happen in this country,” Christine Todd Whitman, co-chair of the nuclear power advocacy group Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and former New Jersey Governor and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief, said.
Nuclear reactors currently operating in the U.S. need to remain running in order to meet the Obama administration’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, but the nuclear industry needs to drive home the message that natural gas and renewables may be insufficient for the U.S. to slash emissions adequately to tackle climate change, Whitman said.
Today’s political climate in the U.S., with Congress generally hostile to the EPA’s strategy to cut greenhouse gas emissions, is not lending itself to quick expansion of nuclear here, she said.
“I hope it will change to the degree it makes it easier for nuclear power to continue to develop in this country,” Whitman said.
"Clearer policies are needed to encourage operators to invest in both long-term operation and new build so as to replace retiring units," said the report. This is particularly important to OECD countries, which use nuclear power to generate 18% of their total electricity, making it their largest source of low-carbon power.
Looking to new build, governments have to "provide a clear commitment and long-term strategy," according to the Roadmap. It said: "Governments should ensure price transparency and the stable policies required for investment in large capital-intensive and long-lived base-load power. Policies should support a level playing field for all sources of low-carbon power projects."
In reaction to the report, the Director General of the World Nuclear Association (WNA) Agneta Rising said, "Governments must play their part... We in the industry must work to ensure that we deliver in a timely and cost-effective way."
Key for the nuclear industry itself is to improve in the delivery of infrastructure on time and to budget. This means the "optimisation of 'Generation-III' designs to improve constructability and reduce costs."
Cooperation is important, both on safe operation and roll-out of post-Fukushima safety upgrades through the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), and for the harmonisation of codes and standards to improve the integration of a global supply chain through the WNA's working group on Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing (Cordel). One issue that must be managed is the conflict between a country's desire to use domestic suppliers for its first nuclear power plant and the global benefit that would flow from standardisation of power plants and standardisation within a global supply chain.
29 January 2015
Nuclear power is one of the most important technologies that can help the world to limit global warming to 2ºC, said OECD agencies in a Technology Roadmap for nuclear that spells out some steps to ensure this happens.
The report is jointly authored by two bodies, the International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Their Technology Roadmap Nuclear Energy is an update of a 2010 edition.
The Technology Roadmap begins by putting forth a future energy mix scenario in which 930 GWe of nuclear capacity provides 17% of electricity. Even though the use of electricity grows over the timeframe to 2050, this increase of nuclear power from 377 GWe today would contribute 13% of the emissions reduction needed to limit global warming.
It was made clear that "this scenario is not a prediction of what will happen" but it serves as a foundation for analysis of policy change and industrial progress needed to achieve similar results. In that context around 12 GWe of new nuclear capacity must be brought online each year to reach the level of 930 GWe by 2050, but "we are not on track," said IEA head Maria van der Hoeven.
"The contributions of nuclear energy - providing valuable base-load electricity, supplying important ancillary services to the grid and contributing to the security of energy supply - must be fully acknowledged"
First, it is important for current nuclear power plants to continue operation as long as technically feasible. This requires that governments "fully acknowledge" the value of long-term operation and take steps to support research and development that could prolong their operational lives.
APRI is going to $4+
I'm going to stick with my only buy into LTBR at $1.29
My main issue with it is distrust. How on Earth can a company with no debt, cash on hand from the offering in November, the fuel being tested in Canada, and streamlined management only be getting an enterprise value of say $18 million if the technology and patent are solid?
That makes me nervous only because it seems so out of line. You'd think the patent alone would be worth more than the market cap.
Time will tell.