Russia owned 40% of the total uranium conversion infrastructure in the world in 2020, and 46% of the total uranium enrichment capacity.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/23/russia-dominates-global-nucl...
Australia has about 2 million tonnes, measured, concentrated in three fairly dense sites with a good chance of more elsewhere.
Kazakhstan has twice the ore (at much better grades) than Russia .. one of the reasons Russia is keen to hang onto the 'stan satellite states.
[Red Book] https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_28569/uranium-resources-pro...
ADDENDUM: The May 2022 report indirectly (via a CNN link) mentioned above is
Reducing Russian Involvement in Western Nuclear Power Markets
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/reducing-...
and mentions Russian "dominance" falling from 2018 to 2020 while outling approaches to continue this fall.
It seems hardly surprising that one of the two major Cold War super powers has almost but not quite half of the global processing capacity. It seems a trivial exercise to guess who might also have nearly half the global uranium processing capacity.
I am not saying it is good or bad, neither trying to start a NIMBY discussion.
But I think Sweden has too strong laws and environmentalist movement (and too little corruption) for a permission to start a uranium mine to happen within a foreseeable future.
Like Copper mining in Kamloops and Sudbury? Or sloppy WWII era uranium processing in the vicinity of Hanford USA?
I suspect (I don't know for sure) that Sweden is unlikely to have the grades for a viable uranium mine.
Were that so it's certainly possible to mine uranium in a manner that doesn't contaminate the mine surrounds .. and possible to process raw yellow cake to usable fuel rods at a site built to modern containment standards.
There's no need for Sweden (were it possible) to have dirty mines such as the Congo Cold War mines.
[1] https://federalmetals.ca/how-does-copper-mining-affect-the-e...
Good luck!
My aim is to be resource and energy aware, abreast of options and best practices.
I'm absolutely not personally for a nuclear power plant here ( W.Australia ) nor anywhere else .. but were it done, best it done well.
Eg: Sweden has the option (should the people all agree) to quickly move to a new nuclear plant by, say, engaging South Korean designs and engineers (they throw them up fast) and contracting yellow cake supply from Canada | Australia.
But these are matters of cost, politics, trust in external suppliers, etc.
This is all populist reactionary messaging by the current government, tapping in to American right wing talking points against windpower - all of which are irrelevant in Sweden as there is no domestic fossil fuel industry to protect. It's just cargo-cult right wing nonsense to whip up their base, they're even railing against drag shows now in Sweden for some reason...
Or they could just revamp their industrial base and try to catch China when it comes to solar panel manufacturing, or to brush away countless environmental protection measures and open up a uranium mine close to places like Aspen, Colorado or to some other places in Idaho recently invaded by California refugees, but I don't see any of those two things happening anytime soon.
And I mean, they don't need to catch up, just have enough of their own production to keep prices low.
I think competing with China on commercial terms will never be successful. The CCP is making sure the whole country is acting as one unit and for long term dominance. They can afford to sell solar panels for $0 until all competitors are dead.
I believe last year the EU agreed on a huge fund to improve advanced semiconductor manufacturing capacity within the bloc, but not sure if that would apply to solar.