Uranium (Nuclear Energy)

[winston]

China Nuclear Sector

The future finally looks bright for Chinesevnuclear power plant equipment makers.

Beijing may allow the nation to build four new nuclear power plants.

I earlier mentioned resumption of new nuclear power projects is just a matter of time.

Dongfang Electric (1072) jumped 4.7 percent.


Source: Dr. Check, The Standard HK

[winston]

Vladimir Putin is quietly taking control of this essential resource market

By Marin Katusa

Source: Casey Research

http://thecrux.com/russia-is-quietly-mo ... 37gMXBU%3D

[winston]

Uranium sinks lower... producer fund URA drops to an all-time low.

[winston]

A Resource Speculation With Big Upside Potential By Brian Weepie

Uranium is breaking out…

Prices are up nearly 40% since July 2014.

But one of the world's leading uranium producers hasn't benefited from the rally so far. And it could be a great opportunity for speculative investors…

As regular Growth Stock Wire readers know, uranium fuels nuclear power stations… And like most commodities, it goes through huge "boom and bust" cycles.

From 2003 to 2007, uranium saw a huge boom. Prices surged from $10 per pound to $130 per pound. And many uranium stocks soared hundreds – and in some cases, thousands – of percent.

But Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in March 2011 helped turn the boom to a bust. Japan, one of the world's largest consumers of nuclear power, shut down its fleet of power plants and sold its stockpiled uranium into the market after the disaster.

Several other countries also scaled back their nuclear programs – reducing global demand. Less demand and increased supply in the market caused uranium prices – and investment sentiment – to collapse.

The spot price of uranium fell more than 60% from its high in 2011 to its 2014 low.

Please Enable Images to See this

The price collapse took uranium stocks with it. Many fell 80% over the same period.

Uranium prices were so low last year that most uranium producers couldn't make money. This caused many miners to cut production.

But demand for uranium has been increasing. The world still needs nuclear power. It generates about 20% of the U.S. electricity supply.

Nuclear power is even more important to emerging markets.

Today, there are about seven billion people in the world. Of these seven billion people, around two billion have little to no access to electricity. Many of these people are in emerging markets.

To continue to develop, these markets need sources of low-cost electric power. That's where nuclear energy comes in. It's a key component to these markets' future energy plans. And it will provide a huge source of demand for uranium for decades.

Cameco – one of the leading uranium producers – expects annual consumption of uranium to grow from 155 million pounds to 230 million pounds by 2024. This is a nearly 50% jump.

In anticipation of increasing low-cost electric power demand, emerging markets are starting to build the infrastructure for nuclear power.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA), an industry trade organization, says there are currently 69 nuclear reactors under construction in the world (many in China). Another 184 are in the planning stage. Most of these should be in operation within eight to 10 years. And another 312 plants are proposed.

The 2013 WNA Market Report estimates 272 new reactors will come online by 2030 (while just 74 will close). There are currently only 438 plants in operation, so this would be some serious growth.

When these plants are fully operational, it's unclear how the industry will supply the increased uranium demand. Current production isn't sufficient.

The higher uranium prices recently suggest the market is beginning to appreciate this imbalance. But one of the world's leading uranium producers hasn't benefitted yet.

Cameco produces about 15% of the world's uranium from its mines in Canada, the U.S., and Kazakhstan. It owns several trophy mines – including the world's largest uranium-producing mine… the world's second-highest grade deposit… and the longest-operating uranium production plant in North America.

Given the big move we've seen in the price of uranium since last summer, you'd expect Cameco's share price would have moved higher, too. But it hasn't. Cameco shares are actually down 24% since uranium began its uptick in July. Take a look…

Please Enable Images to See this

The reason shares have fallen doesn't have anything to do with uranium.

It's about taxes.

Since 2008, Cameco has been fighting with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) about back taxes. In short, the CRA has accused Cameco of dodging taxes. But Cameco insists it has done nothing wrong. Cameco expects the matter will go to trial next year. If Cameco loses the dispute with the CRA, it could be on the hook for up to $1.5 billion of back taxes and penalties.

That's a big number for a company with a market cap of $6 billion.

And the CRA isn't the only one trying to get more revenue out of Cameco.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is now demanding back taxes from Cameco, too. The IRS demand is much smaller, at around $32 million. But it's another black eye for the company.

The uncertainty over the trial has caused investors to flee the stock. Remember, there's nothing investors hate more than uncertainty.

But this could be creating a great opportunity…

As I explained above, things are improving in the uranium sector. And as a leading uranium producer, Cameco will be a big beneficiary of higher uranium prices. The only thing holding Cameco back is its tax problems.

Investors are already fearing the worst, so a big chunk of the potential penalties are priced into the stock. So any "less bad" news – including the company settling before trial – could send shares soaring.

Even if Cameco goes to trial and loses, shares could STILL head higher… The market has a way of rewarding certainty. And once a decision is made, the company's cash flows would be more certain.

Cameco shares have recently moved higher. This is a good entry point for more speculative investors.


Source: Growth Stock Wire

[winston]

Uranium-producer fund URA drops 40% over the past year.

[winston]

This surprising country will need 74% more of one critical commodity soon by Dave Forest

There has been a lot of talk in uranium about burgeoning Chinese demand being a savior for miners.

But another, more surprising nation is also making a push this week to secure supplies.

India.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Canada yesterday. His arrival represents the first India-Canada governmental visit in 42 years − and a chance to discuss securing uranium supply for India’s growing nuclear sector.

Prior to departing for the trip, Modi made it clear that uranium was a key issue in talks with Canada, noting that “sourcing uranium fuel for our nuclear power plants” was one of his biggest goals for the current visit.

Sources told local press that talks are already well-advanced between Indian interests and Canadian uranium producers, with mining giant Cameco being mentioned as the most likely supplier.

A look at the numbers makes it clear why uranium is such a big priority for India. Because the country’s nuclear program is in the middle of a massive buildout.

India’s current installed nuclear capacity stands at 5,780 megawatts, but according to reports released by the government last month, that number is expected to jump to 10,080 megawatts by 2019.

That represents a 74% increase in nuclear generation. All of it coming in the next few years.

India does have some domestic production of uranium to support its reactors, but not nearly enough to be completely supplied.

Uranium imports are thus going to be a big issue for the government over the coming months and years. Watch for details on supply deals being completed in Canada − and for investigations into production from other parts of the world.

It will also be interesting to see if India’s growing nuclear demand prompts the nation to get more directly involved in mining projects, which could provide a welcome source of funding for developers amid the current challenging market environment.

Source: Pierce Points

[winston]

Uranium giant Cameco soars 14% over the past month

[winston]

A Major Commodity Deal That Could Lead to Big Gains By Brian Weepie

India just bought a massive amount of uranium.

Last Wednesday, the country agreed to purchase C$350 million worth of the nuclear power source from Canada.

It's the first nuclear contract between Canada and India in 40 years. And it's a big deal for resource investors…

In March, I told you about the breakout in uranium prices. They're up nearly 40% since July 2014. And with demand for uranium increasing in emerging markets, I said prices would continue to head higher.

You see, to continue to develop, emerging markets need sources of low-cost electric power. That's where nuclear energy comes in. And emerging markets are rushing to build nuclear reactors.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA), an industry trade organization, says there are currently 65 nuclear reactors under construction in the world. Another 165 are in the planning stage. Most of these should be in operation within eight to 10 years. And another 331 plants have been proposed.

A lot of these reactors will be in India. After China, India is building the most nuclear plants in the world.

According to the WNA, India currently has 21 nuclear reactors. It's in the process of building another six that should be online within a couple years. And it has another 57 reactors in the works. Of these, the WNA says 22 should be in operation within 10 years. Most of the other 35 should be in operation within 15 years.

Those are big numbers. Even if India shut down all of its current reactors – which is unlikely – in 15 years, it would have almost three times as many as today. By 2032, India expects to have 7.5 times more nuclear capacity than today.

To fuel these reactors, India and other emerging markets will need a lot of uranium. Canadian uranium producer Cameco expects annual world consumption of uranium to grow from 155 million pounds to 230 million pounds by 2024.

That's why India recently agreed to buy C$350 million worth of uranium (7.1 million pounds of uranium concentrate) from Cameco through 2020.

The news of the deal sent Cameco shares soaring more than 7% in one day. And shares are likely headed higher…

Big deals like this make investors more aware of the improving uranium sector. And once they see demand for uranium is increasing along with prices, they'll pour into uranium producers like Cameco.

I expect to see more uranium deals announced in the months ahead as India, China, and other emerging markets continue to build nuclear reactors and consume more uranium.

This will be great news for the share prices of uranium producers. If you want to set yourself up to profit, I recommend looking into Cameco today.

Source: Growth Stock Wire

[winston]

The Price of Uranium Is About to Rocket

By PETER KRAUTH

Source: Money Morning

http://moneymorning.com/2015/04/30/the- ... to-rocket/

[winston]

Did Tesla Just Kill Nuclear Power?b by Jeff McMahon

It would be almost three hours until Tesla’s big announcement, but inside a Northwestern University classroom near Chicago Thursday night, the famed nuclear critic Arnie Gundersen had the inside scoop:

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk was about to announce an industrial-scale battery, Gundersen said, that would cost about 2¢ per kilowatt hour to use, putting the final nail in the coffin of nuclear power.

Thus Tesla’s big news broke first not amongst the throng of reporters gathered under swirling colored lights at the carmaker’s Los Angeles press conference, but in the middle of a debate on the future of nuclear power sponsored by students agitating for a “Fossil Free NU.” It was Gundersen vs. Jordi Roglans-Ribas, the director of the Nuclear Engineering Division of Argonne National Laboratory.

Roglans-Ribas had just finished arguing that any future free of fossil fuels would need nuclear power, which provides carbon-free energy 24 hours a day, supplying the reliability lacking in renewables like solar and wind.

Gundersen called that claim a “marketing ploy.”

“We all know that the wind doesn’t blow consistently and the sun doesn’t shine every day,” he said, “but the nuclear industry would have you believe that humankind is smart enough to develop techniques to store nuclear waste for a quarter of a million years, but at the same time human kind is so dumb we can’t figure out a way to store solar electricity overnight. To me that doesn’t make sense.”

Then Gundersen told the audience of about 80 students and visitors that it was a momentous day in history—because of something that was about to happen in California. He evoked Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal, chairman of SpaceX and SolarCity, and the product architect for Tesla Motors:

“At about ten ‘o’clock tonight he’s going to hold a press conference and he’s going to announce that he’s going to build industrial scale storage batteries. While the announcement is still two hours away, it appears that they’ll be able to produce these large batteries for about 2¢ per kilowatt hour. That’s an enormous breakthrough,” Gundersen said.

“So the nuclear argument that they’re the only 24-7 source is off the table now because Elon Musk has convinced me that industrial scale storage is in fact possible, and it’s here.”

And a few hours later Musk announced the launch of Tesla Energy, ”a suite of batteries for homes, businesses, and utilities fostering a clean energy ecosystem and helping wean the world off fossil fuels.” Many had anticipated the batteries—but not the price.

Tesla will sell the home battery, the Tesla Powerwall, for $3,500, a fraction of the $13,000 price observers had expected, and perhaps more importantly, a fraction of the cost of the $10,000 battery announced earlier this week by European competitors Sungevity and Sonnenbatterie.

Musk did not describe the cost of the utility-scale battery, but the prospect of a cheap new battery powered Gundersen’s economic argument as he collegially set out to demolish the nuclear claim:

The UK government just signed an agreement guaranteeing a price of 16 cents per kilowatt hour for power generated by a reactor proposed for Hinkley Point, on the coast at Somerset, England. That fresh contract represents an example, Gundersen argued, of the market price of new nuclear power.

Solar power costs six to seven cents, he said, and wind costs four or five cents. Add 2¢ for the cost of a utility-scale Tesla battery, and renewables with reliable storage are still at half the price of new nuclear power.

They’re also approaching the price of existing nuclear power.

“Here in Illinois you know it’s true because Exelon is threatening to close five nuclear plants because they can’t compete with wind anymore.”

The real cost of various sources of energy is a topic of debate. Last year the U.S. Dept of Energy said the cost of wind power had reached a new low of 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour (pdf). The cost of solar is typically pegged much higher, but the UN International Energy Agency estimates solar is on a path to a cost of about 4 cents per kilowatt hour in coming decades. [Lazard has utility-scale solar at 6 cents in 2017.]

Gundersen is a former nuclear engineer and executive who lost his job in 1990 after reporting safety violations to his employer. He testifies and campaigns against nuclear power for Fairewinds Energy Education, a non-profit founded by his wife, Maggie Gundersen, also a former nuclear industry employee.

Gundersen’s debate opponent, Roglans-Ribas, did not address the Tesla battery development. He based his argument largely on reliability before Gundersen played that card, and he suggested that reliability alone would not sustain nuclear power—that it would need regulatory help to compete.

“To actually be able to incentivize reliability in the electric grid will be the key,” Roglans-Ribas said. “And that is where nuclear power can play a key role.”

Each kilogram of uranium burned in a reactor saves “thousands or millions of tons of CO2 emissions,” he said, conceding that “renewables can do the same thing.” But if the U.S. depends entirely on renewables, he predicted, a point will come when the supply cannot meet the demand.

“The solution to moving way from fossil fuels, moving away from greenhouse gas emissions, the solution is a mix that includes nuclear and includes also renewables and also other sources, including for example gas turbines that provide peaking power,” Roglans-Ribas concluded.

But Gundersen dismissed the nuclear contribution as too expensive and too slow—even if the U.S. could license and afford new reactors, they could not come online before 2023—and he replaced the nuclear contribution with batteries and conservation.

“The operative word in this discussion tonight is now. What are we going to do now to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere?” he said. “These things can be implemented immediately. We know how to insulate a building. We know how to put double and triple-pane windows in them. We know how to build windmills and put solar cells up. These are immediate things. We don’t have to invest $50 trillion and wait 15 years for that to come to fruition.

“Producing our way out of the problem with renewables is half the solution. Conserving our way out is the other half.”


Source: Forbes