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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more