Skip to main content

NEI's Energy Markets Report - November 5 - November 9, 2007

Here's a summary of what went on in the energy markets last week:
Electricity peak prices increased $2-9/MWh at the Eastern hubs and decreased $3-5/MWh at the Western hubs (see pages 1 and 3).

Gas prices at the Henry Hub rose from $6.81/MMBtu to $6.90/MMBtu. Working gas in storage reached a record level for the second week in a row with 3,545 Bcf as of Friday, November 2. Factors contributing to the large volume in storage include improved supply and favorable economics. The 3,545 Bcf is 8.9 percent above the 5-year average inventory level for the report week (EIA, see pages 1 and 3).

By 2011, the following amounts of new generating capacity are expected to start up: 29,000 MW of coal; 47,000 MW of natural gas; and 37,000 MW of wind (see page 5).

Estimated nuclear plant availability remained at 83 percent last week. Two reactors finished refueling outages while four reactors shut down for maintenance (see pages 2 and 4).

Uranium spot prices were $93 and $92/lb U3O8 according to TradeTech and UxConsulting. UxC noted that the current uranium spot price is more than high enough to spur additional investment in uranium production. They also projected uranium prices to begin moderating due to increased uranium supplies coming to the markets over the next five years (see pages 1 and 3).

Crude oil prices continued to increase to $93.46/barrel. Crude oil futures were trading above $90/barrel for November 2008. EIA says one of the reasons for high oil prices is strong economic growth from China, the United States, and the Middle East. China and the United States alone are projected to account for half of the world oil consumption growth in 2007 and 2008 (see pages 1, 2 and 3).
For the report click here. It is also located on NEI's Financial Center webpage.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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…