Skip to main content

Uranium Price to Peak Around $103 / Pound in 2008

By
That's according to The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics:

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics's March quarter Australian Commodities report, released yesterday, said despite a substantial increase in global uranium mine production this year, the spot uranium price was expected to keep appreciating, averaging more than $US94.20 ($A121.69) per pound in 2007, compared with $US85 now. "In 2008, the spot uranium price is forecast to increase by a further 10 per cent to average $US103 per pound," ABARE said.

...

However prices will start to decline after next year ABARE says, as the large amounts of money being spent on uranium exploration, both in Australia and around the world, begin to translate into new mine production.

Here's another take on uranium prices according to NEI's Marvin Fertel:
In the long run, "I think we're going to end up with a much better situation than we even had before," he said.
For more information on how uranium prices affect nuclear fuel costs check out pages 9 and 10 of NEI's Status and Outlook Report (pdf):
The price of uranium does not pose the kind of challenge for nuclear energy as fuel costs do for other sources of baseload generation. For example, 78 percent of the cost of generating electricity at a coal plant is the cost of the coal. At combined cycle gas plants, fuel is 94 percent of the production cost. At nuclear plants, fuel costs are only 26 percent of production costs. And only half of that nuclear fuel cost is the cost of uranium. Conversion, fabrication and enrichment are also part of the cost of fuel at a nuclear plant, as well as the contribution to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund.
All I can say is that I wish I were an investor in uranium about 4 years ago.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
The bright side of this matter is that it will renew interest in fuel recycling.

The price is over $200/kg. This is sort of a "magic number" in many ways, because it represents an impetus to develop the Japanese amidoxime resin technology for recovering uranium from seawater.

While commercialization of this technology would require sustained prices this high -I don't really think they will be so sustained - it is likely to increase research into the subject. This will make the technology available when it is really needed.

But the immediate short-term outcome of high prices will be a strengthening of the recycling positon, something I unabashedly support.

-NNadir
March 6, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more