Skip to main content

Eyes On the Uranium Market

From yesterday's International Herald Tribune
After decades of sinking prices, a uranium boom is under way as orders for new nuclear power plants in Asia mount and a vast stockpile of fuel from former Soviet nuclear weapons decommissioned after the cold war begins to run down.

The spot price for concentrated uranium oxide, or yellowcake, the form in which uranium is sold, has tripled to almost $21.75 a pound from a 20-year low of $7.10 a pound in December 2000. Some mining analysts expect it to reach $30 a pound or higher next year.

Meanwhile, in Kazakhstan, the nation's nuclear energy company announced it was boosting output to meet increased demand:
KazAtomProm said in a statement that it produced 3,719 metric tons (4,000 short tons) of uranium in 2004, a 10 percent increase on the previous year.

It plans to boost output to more than 4,000 metric tons (4,409 short tons) this year, rising to as much as 15,000 metric tons (16,500 short tons) annually in 2010, making it the world's largest uranium producer, the statement said.

Comments

Kelly L. Taylor said…
I have been reading articles that the uranium market will change in the next ten years from supply-driven to demand-driven. Having seen the changes wrought in the natural gas markets by increasing demand for this cheap (!) fuel source until demand outstrips supply, I wonder what the long-term strategies are for the uranium markets.

We currently use more uranium worldwide than what is being produced from the mines - although I understand price can drive exploration. The uranium prices aren't moving quickly, since there are several sources of stockpiles that will continue to moderate the market effects of increasing demand. But I also understand that Russian ores are lesser quality than Canadian ores, for example - so to maintain their production market share, they must put forth ten times more effort mining than the Canadians must.

How will increasing uranium prices affect the long term growth of the worldwide nuclear power production? Will we see a build cycle followed by a dormant cycle, as with natural gas plants?

http://www.uex-corporation.com/
s/UraniumMarket.asp

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…