"That spare capacity was uneconomical hence Cameco had to go...

"That spare capacity was uneconomical hence Cameco had to go C&M. If this industry is not over burdened by regulation, imagine all those Namibian explorers cranking up supply to meet a weak market."

--- BINGO! the overburden is not also regulatory but also from the uneconomical nature of mining U. taking what you say, i could argue that if mining U was profitable at this stage, it would cause prices to definitely go lower. but they are bouncing from +$20plb. i don't understand your argument here. do you think edf is going to approach artisanal plebs and get 10 years of uranium supply? ok suppose we entertain your namibian invasion and they do get some stuff from their imaginary mines and plants that you reference but then what about the current 449 other nuclear reactors in operation? sorry but I'm going to just write your paragraph off.

"What this industry needs is a sustained demand, not just a supply control because that way supply is artificial and just waiting for price rather than demand. You can see Zinc since GFC went nowhere for almost a decade and folks kept looking at the warehouse storage volume at LME to reduce and then claim that there is demand pressure. Each time magically Zinc supply gets dump on to LME stockpiles as price recovers."

--- Helloooooo joey, anybody there?? have you been under a rock for the past 7 years? to address your question- within 2015-16, there was a period in japan where ALL 54 nuclear reactors were offline. consequence? demand pulled back and the price dropped. since then, we have reduced global output and brought online ~48 reactors, excluding japans 9/54 restarted reactors. regarding stockpiling at the LME, i don't know what those brits conjure from their bankster ways, but know this- the reactors that went offline or are going offline had stockpiles and together with global producers, stockpiles would have obviously been swollen but IMO stored either at utilities, or at reached all time highs from 2015 until now.
with current production at ~120Mlbs one could argue the commencement of supply contraction and absorption. point is, demand has not weakened and won't be at the rate ol mate china man and his million ants are building NPP these days.

my belief is that nuclear power will continue the test of time, as one can't refute the ultimate arithmetical certainty- nuclear energy has the highest capacity factor on earth thus far, and if we care about the environment then we should be incentivising innovation in nuclear power and supporting responsible uranium production.

"There is only a need for this power source in a few countries namely France and Japan...etc"

look, don't just pigeonhole nuclear output on 2 countries. we have 450+ nuclear reactors worldwide. NP generates 20% of yank electricity still. you and probably many people don't realise that the nuclear industry fends for itself. its only weakness is the lack of innovation in creating cheaper and faster construction methods. instead we continue with fossils because they are economical, and we subsidise renewable in hopes that one day it will be self sustainable and efficient (good luck as a long term power alternative).

I'm sure we could go on and on about batteries and investment strategies and all, but I'm just waiting for the price to crack $27 plb. if it does then the next move will be on the table IMO. you're a price man aren't you? well, the price is moving up as we speak!