3 ms·

Two in one week? What are the odds? First I've heard of it but Oklo is a fission company with zero revenue and their stock is already down %54. That seems promi

by owyn 2y ago

Two in one week? What are the odds? First I've heard of it but Oklo is a fission company with zero revenue and their stock is already down %54. That seems promising. /s

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
Looks like Nano Nuclear Energy is already down 20%
bagels 2y ago
54% from a post merger spike. It's basically even with the nominal $10 SPAC pre-merger price now.
defrost 2y ago
There are many converging lines, climate change concerns have leveraged increased support for nuclear in general and modular nuclear in particular. On another front a loooong standing high level global 'plan' for nuclear waste storage in Australia has advanced. As a concept it's kicked about since the dawn of the atomic age, with Mark Oliphant, Tube Alloys, and beyond. It gained propasal status several times, eg. as Pangea in the late 1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea_Resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea_Resources and more recently it's back on the table as a somewhat redacted clause of the AU-UK-US (AUKUS) partnership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/02/01/aukus-nuclear-waste-storage-australia/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/02/01/aukus-nuclear-waste-sto... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/poison-portal-us-and-uk-could-send-nuclear-waste-to-australia-under-aukus-inquiry-told https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/poison-portal-... with many rumours and little confirmed as to the extent of intended nuclear waste storage, whether just military waste from Australian submarines, or more general UK+US military waste, or even further.
- ggm 2y ago
  As you can imagine, a cloud of NIMBY is breaking out about this, and with no site picked, and elections in states and federal level this has about as much chance of coming to fruition in the next electoral cycle as Fusion power has of delivering power to the public networks. I am not personally opposed to a dump. The income stream for what is basically passive income as rent would be astronomically beneficial to the location, and the economy. We have some obligation to take back the products of our uranium mining, and compared to other choices Australia is a good pick to store radionucleotides in. We're stable politically, economically, and geologically. I would be entirely happy for the dump to be dug underneath my house. I live on a floodplain with acid sulphate soils but I imagine at some depth, there's a good structural basis to do it. There are probably far better locations. it may be in AUKUS, but can I point out that the US has already refused to confirm if Australia will have sole control of the Virginia class subs we've been half-promised, nor has the promise been kept in any real sense because there is already a supply chain crisis behind the subs, we've paid the US to keep the factories alive, and we don't know what the AUKUS class will look like or who will actually make them or when.. yet. This deal is half-baked, at best.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > This deal is half-baked, at best. You're being generous. :-) To be clear I have no objection to the nuclear aspect if handly well, it's the entire debacle from start to end that's on the nose .. I don't accept the case for hugely expensive nuclear subs over the pre existing French order (which had other, albeit lesser, issues). In an entirely unrelated aside; see: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/05/14/scott-morrison-memoir-review-plans-for-your-good/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/05/14/scott-morrison-memoir-r...
    - XorNot 2y ago
      Strategically nuclear submarines are an excellent choice for Australia though - the problem is ScoMo was a terrible prime minister and I have no idea what the hell he was thinking with that surprise announcement and it's resultant costs. But it would make a lot of sense for Australia to get a fleet of ballistic-missile capable subs, put conventional warheads in them, but ensure they could become "nuclear capable" with a munition switch: these are 30+ year assets in most cases with long lead times. How comfortable we should feel about being under the US/NATO nuclear umbrella is a fluid thing over those timeframes.
      - ggm 2y ago
        We could have asked the French. Morrison tore up a strategic alliance outside of US and UK to meet a goal. The subs on order he cancelled were in effect de-nuclearised french designs. He shat on Macron for kudos.
roenxi 2y ago
> Two in one week? What are the odds? Remarkably higher than intuition would suggest. Things happen for reasons, so when something happens there is an unusually good chance that it'll happen again quickly because events aren't happening independently. Like how if somebody is struck by lightening and don't seek shelter, there is a heightened chance it'll happen again shortly.
BrandonMarc 2y ago
Fission company, eh? Wonder when we'll see the first stock split.

by owyn 2y ago

Two in one week? What are the odds? First I've heard of it but Oklo is a fission company with zero revenue and their stock is already down %54. That seems promising. /s

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago

Looks like Nano Nuclear Energy is already down 20%

bagels 2y ago

54% from a post merger spike. It's basically even with the nominal $10 SPAC pre-merger price now.

defrost 2y ago

There are many converging lines, climate change concerns have leveraged increased support for nuclear in general and modular nuclear in particular. On another front a loooong standing high level global 'plan' for nuclear waste storage in Australia has advanced. As a concept it's kicked about since the dawn of the atomic age, with Mark Oliphant, Tube Alloys, and beyond. It gained propasal status several times, eg. as Pangea in the late 1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea_Resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea_Resources and more recently it's back on the table as a somewhat redacted clause of the AU-UK-US (AUKUS) partnership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/02/01/aukus-nuclear-waste-storage-australia/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/02/01/aukus-nuclear-waste-sto... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/poison-portal-us-and-uk-could-send-nuclear-waste-to-australia-under-aukus-inquiry-told https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/poison-portal-... with many rumours and little confirmed as to the extent of intended nuclear waste storage, whether just military waste from Australian submarines, or more general UK+US military waste, or even further.

ggm 2y ago
As you can imagine, a cloud of NIMBY is breaking out about this, and with no site picked, and elections in states and federal level this has about as much chance of coming to fruition in the next electoral cycle as Fusion power has of delivering power to the public networks. I am not personally opposed to a dump. The income stream for what is basically passive income as rent would be astronomically beneficial to the location, and the economy. We have some obligation to take back the products of our uranium mining, and compared to other choices Australia is a good pick to store radionucleotides in. We're stable politically, economically, and geologically. I would be entirely happy for the dump to be dug underneath my house. I live on a floodplain with acid sulphate soils but I imagine at some depth, there's a good structural basis to do it. There are probably far better locations. it may be in AUKUS, but can I point out that the US has already refused to confirm if Australia will have sole control of the Virginia class subs we've been half-promised, nor has the promise been kept in any real sense because there is already a supply chain crisis behind the subs, we've paid the US to keep the factories alive, and we don't know what the AUKUS class will look like or who will actually make them or when.. yet. This deal is half-baked, at best.
- defrost 2y ago
  > This deal is half-baked, at best. You're being generous. :-) To be clear I have no objection to the nuclear aspect if handly well, it's the entire debacle from start to end that's on the nose .. I don't accept the case for hugely expensive nuclear subs over the pre existing French order (which had other, albeit lesser, issues). In an entirely unrelated aside; see: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/05/14/scott-morrison-memoir-review-plans-for-your-good/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/05/14/scott-morrison-memoir-r...
  - XorNot 2y ago
    Strategically nuclear submarines are an excellent choice for Australia though - the problem is ScoMo was a terrible prime minister and I have no idea what the hell he was thinking with that surprise announcement and it's resultant costs. But it would make a lot of sense for Australia to get a fleet of ballistic-missile capable subs, put conventional warheads in them, but ensure they could become "nuclear capable" with a munition switch: these are 30+ year assets in most cases with long lead times. How comfortable we should feel about being under the US/NATO nuclear umbrella is a fluid thing over those timeframes.
    - ggm 2y ago
      We could have asked the French. Morrison tore up a strategic alliance outside of US and UK to meet a goal. The subs on order he cancelled were in effect de-nuclearised french designs. He shat on Macron for kudos.

roenxi 2y ago

> Two in one week? What are the odds? Remarkably higher than intuition would suggest. Things happen for reasons, so when something happens there is an unusually good chance that it'll happen again quickly because events aren't happening independently. Like how if somebody is struck by lightening and don't seek shelter, there is a heightened chance it'll happen again shortly.

BrandonMarc 2y ago

Fission company, eh? Wonder when we'll see the first stock split.