Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Twitter
Shop
Search
Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

Search Results for All:
(Showing results 1 to 5 of 5)



Short-Term Price Formation in the U.S. Uranium Market

A. D. Owen

Year: 1985
Volume: Volume 6
Number: Number 3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol6-No3-3
View Abstract

Abstract:
Since the establishment of a private market for uranium in the United States in the late 1960s, the industry's fluctuating fortunes have been reflected in the short-term price of uranium as represented by NUEXCO's "exchange value."' Exchange values are current prices for current or near-term delivery. While NUEXCO emphasizes that its exchange value is not a "spot" price in the usual sense of the word, it still is generally regarded as an indicator of uranium spot (short-term) market price levels.



Short-Term Price Formation in the U.S. Uranium Market: A Comment

Ferdinand E. Banks

Year: 1986
Volume: Volume 7
Number: Number 3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol7-No3-13
View Abstract

Abstract:
The recent paper in The Energy Journal by A. D. Owen (1985) provided another important example of an econometric relationship for short-term pricing very similar to those presented by Fisher, Cootner, and Baily (1972) for copper, and Banks (1971) for refined zinc. This short comment merely adds an observation to the pricing behavior discussed by Owen. Other useful presentations of this topic are Owen (1983), and Stephany, Bauder, and Lurf (1981).



The Economics of Strategic Choice: U.S. Uranium Enrichment in the World Market

David L. Bodde, Mollie V. Quasebarth, and John B. Thomasian

Year: 1986
Volume: Volume 7
Number: Number 4
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol7-No4-7
View Abstract

Abstract:
For uranium to be used as fuel in light water reactors, the concen-tration of the fissionable U-235 isotope must be increased from the 0.711 percent found in natural uranium to about 3 percent. This service, termed enrichment, has been provided by the U.S. government since commercial nuclear powerplants began to operate in the late 1950s. The U.S. enrichment enterprise enjoyed a virtual monopoly until European competitors emerged in the late 1970s. These competitors not only took over service of their own national markets, but also began to offer enrichment worldwide under terms more attractive than those available from the United States. As a result, the U.S. share of the world market has declined to 47 percent and is likely to decline further in the absence of a competitive response.



Nuclear Energy After Chernobyl: Views from Four Countries

Ulf Hansen, Christine Chapuis, Thomas J. Connolly and Arto Lepisto

Year: 1988
Volume: Volume 9
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No1-3
View Abstract

Abstract:
At the end of 1986, 397 nuclear power plants with a total of 274 GW were in operation worldwide. Their electricity generation was equivalent to burning 500 million tons of coal or 7 million barrels per day of oil, roughly 40 percent of the OPEC output. When the 134GW under construction are finished, uranium-based electricity will substitute some 850 million tons of coal equivalent (mtce) per year. Nuclear power is now the largest primary energy source for electricity generation in the twelve countries of the European Community.



The Economics of Strategic Choice: U.S. Uranium Enrichment in the World Market: A Comment

George F. Combs, Jr.

Year: 1989
Volume: Volume 10
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol10-No1-17
View Abstract

Abstract:
In an earlier paper in The Energy Journal, Bodde, Quasebarth, and Thomasian (1986) discussed two pricing options that the U.S. government could pursue in selling enrichment services to the market, and noted the likely outcomes that adherence to each strategy would produce. While the authors considered the structure of the enrichment market and the cost advantages of new enrichment technology, they failed to take into account enrichment's role in the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly the degree to which enrichment and uranium can be substituted for one another. This omission is particularly significant, given the potential for the relative economics of enrichment and uranium to be affected due to the cost improvements and technological advances being made in enrichment.





Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

 





function toggleAbstract(id) { alert(id); }