USEC Inc. (USU)

All Comments on USU

  • commenter
    clue me in
    Sep 25 08:09 PM
    2 Top Energy Sector Bets [view article]
    "Only" 31 died as a result of Chernobyl.

    Why would anyone listen to one who makes a statement like that? The collateral damage is still going on and it's cost in suffering (and money for those who think that's the best measurement) is too large to ignore.

    Is this article the result of research or self serving cherry picking of facts that the author feels support his position? At best, a twisted point of view.     Reply
  • commenter
    rhj123
    Sep 13 12:36 PM
    My Website
    Hurricane Damage Effects - Cramer's Lightning Round (9/12/08) [view article]
    Cramer may be right on anything concerning Sun power and Uranium, since oil prices have fallen. Americans seem to live on oil, and will cut back on any other source of power when oil prices decrease. Reply
  • commenter
    U_Fool
    Sep 13 11:22 AM
    Hurricane Damage Effects - Cramer's Lightning Round (9/12/08) [view article]
    Finally got one of his bearish calls (USEC).
    Now maybe it can finally start an uptrend.     Reply
  • commenter
    Britishsteel
    Sep 12 09:44 PM
    Hurricane Damage Effects - Cramer's Lightning Round (9/12/08) [view article]
    buy his bear calls and sell his bullish ones, either way you lose if ya listen to him Bwhahahahahaha Reply
  • commenter
    Darrell
    Sep 12 02:31 PM
    My Website
    2 Top Energy Sector Bets [view article]
    It is amazing that no one is mentioning FTE NLR. This where one begins if they want to invest in the nuclear industry. Reply
  • commenter
    thomas728
    Sep 10 07:06 AM
    Replacement Candidates for David Merkel's Portfolio: From AA to ZZ [view article]
    Hey guy........where is WaMu ? Every portfolio needs a solid
    financial.

    Mr. Nygren     Reply
  • commenter
    mangolfer
    Sep 09 08:13 AM
    2 Top Energy Sector Bets [view article]
    Great post. Nuclear is the best alternative right now. Reply
  • commenter
    ED K
    Sep 07 12:18 PM
    2 Top Energy Sector Bets [view article]
    AS LONG AS WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT THAT DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF OIL DEPENDENCE YOU CAN COMMENT ALL YOU WANT AND NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN.WHAT A SLAP IN THE FACE IT WAS WHEN CONGRESS WENT ON VACATION INSTEAD OF ACTING ON THIS CRITICAL ISSUE,THANKS TO PELOSI.HOW ABOUT THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY,JIMMY CARTER,PUTTING HIS NEGATIVE TWO CENTS IN AND GOVERNOR JOHN CORZINE OF NEW JERSEY ,NO DRILLING OFF N.J.I HOPE WHEN ELECTION TIME COMES AMERICANS REMEMBER TO VOTE ALL THESE BUMS OUT,THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF DOING AMERICAS BUSINESS. Reply
  • commenter
    Daniel
    Jacome
    Sep 04 04:36 PM
    My Website
    Replacement Candidates for David Merkel's Portfolio: From AA to ZZ [view article]
    can we dump this into a spreadsheet next time and rank them a bit. this is just another snow job: ) Reply
  • commenter
    U3O8Insighte
    r
    Sep 04 02:44 PM
    2 Top Energy Sector Bets [view article]
    MBBOB, need a better battery first-to replace fossil fuels altogether. Electric cars are good for the millions of people in urban areas. Need CNG for the big rigs/heavy haulers 'til battery technology catches up. NO WAY should it be used for the power grid. Nuclear should be the main provider, with solar, wind, etc. when mother nature allows. Population and usage going UP, need power options with balls. HIGHLY recommend nuclear for the short-to-midterm 'til 'other' technologies give us more options. Happy investing! Reply
  • commenter
    sandspider
    Sep 04 12:35 PM
    2 Top Energy Sector Bets [view article]
    Check out France, we laugh at them but they have doing with Nuclear what we only dream of. While we been sitting on our rumps for the last 30 years they been making progress in clean efficient power. But before one invest in nuclear might take a look at how long it takes to get a new system built and on line. In our country with present attitude, we will still be smoking coal in the next 30 years. Reply
  • commenter
    MICROBIOBOB
    Sep 04 10:23 AM
    2 Top Energy Sector Bets [view article]
    Why not use natural gas for electricity generation. It is clean burning and abundant (and getting more so). The CO2 would have to be captured and used for other purposes, such as, bringing up residual oil, until conversion to less harmful forms can be achieved. Use the hybrid and electric power technology, now available and being developed, for vehicles. Solar and wind power is being added to vehicles to help maintain charge. This requires less infrastructure change and is available, now. Reply
  • commenter
    ohm
    Sep 04 10:22 AM
    2 Top Energy Sector Bets [view article]
    Jimmy Carter our resident "expert" killed nuclear power in the US. Two plants ready to start up, dismantled and sold for scrap.

    I was stationed aboard three nuclear subs for about six years. We never had a problem. I would often go into the upper level of the reactor compartment to study because is was so clean, well lighted and quiet.

    Now we have an energy crisis. And, Jimmy is still shooting his mouth off with trash!     Reply
  • commenter
    AMC
    Sep 04 10:03 AM
    2 Top Energy Sector Bets [view article]
    I love reading the posts by those opposed to nuclear energy- people you read all the facts already...nuclear is the best bet, hands down, no question. Are there other options? Yes. Are they ready to be implemented on a scale that can contribute SIGNIFICANT amounts of energy into our electric grids? NO! No matter how you slice it, we do not presently have the technology to implement enough solar, wind, hydro-electric or geothermal devices/stations to power our national energy needs. Should all these methods be put into place immediately so less nuclear energy is needed? YES!! We need to use a mix of all of these methods coupled with nuclear energy and transition away from coal and oil powered plants. You read it in the comments above: we have a nuclear Navy (i.e. submarines!)- no accidents; France derives some 80% of it's energy from nuclear energy- no accidents. Chernobyl happened as a result of sub-par engineering and a handful of foolish engineers that pushed a power plant beyond it's capabilities during a systems test and didn't know how to properly fix their mistakes when things starting going south- hence, a meltdown.

    We are concerned about waste- reprocess the spent fuel like France does and store all waste beyond reprocessing's capabilities in cooling pools at the plants (for now). Is nuclear a resource that we may run out of in another century or so? Yes. However, with the reprocessing capabilities and improvements in that field, maybe we have more than 100yrs to be concerned with that aspect and we have at least that long to develop new and improved energy delivery methods. Think about how far we've already come in the last 100yrs... are you going to assume that we won't have improvements just as dramatic in the next 100? Seems pretty logical to me.

    Everyone needs to keep in mind that nuclear power plants are engineered in such a manner today that even if a terrorist was to drop a bomb on a power plant, the chance of having another Chernobyl (unless the bomb itself was a nuke) are VERY slim. The rest of the world is waking up to nuclear energy and building new nuclear power plants at an astounding rate. Before you know it, America will once again find itself playing catch up with those around us- rushing to keep up and spending billions upon billions of dollars to get it done yesterday.

    It takes 10 yrs to build a new nuclear power plant... the time to act is NOW!     Reply
  • commenter
    Clearlead
    Sep 04 09:24 AM
    2 Top Energy Sector Bets [view article]
    Electric cars driven by wind, and solar, biomass, natural gas and nukes means less coal burned, which means less carbon. Easier to deal with pollution at the utility level than at the retail level, sorry, there's a strong case that electric cars are good for national security and a big step in the right direction of reducing the impact of transportation in terms of environmental costs. Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: