Entergy (NYSE:ETR) has sued the state of Vermont over the proposed closure of its nuclear power plant after being granted a 20-year license extension from federal regulators.
This is an issue because Vermont has a law on the books which says both houses of its legislature have to give approval before a state license can be issued to continue operating.
The company is filing the suit on the basis the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states have no authority over the licensing of nuclear plants. Entergy also contends Vermont may be interfering with federal authority in regard to the regulation of wholesale power.
In what will be an interesting and enlightening battle, Entergy's suit sets up a legal confrontation over whether the state or federal government has the final say in nuclear plant licensing.
Entergy was trading at $66.90, gaining $0.93, or 1.41 percent, as of 1:17 PM EDT.
Showing posts with label Nuclear Demand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear Demand. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Trina Solar's (TSL) Rise an Anomaly, or Sustainable?
Trina Solar jumped 4 percent recently, coming close to a share price it hasn't reached since January. What remains to be seen is whether this move is sustainable or not. It appears it isn't, even though the media and pundits in love with "green" technology are attempting to make it appear to be.
Several factors are in play surrounding the solar sector, with most being negative.
The only element that offers some strength to the industry is what, if any, response will there be from countries as a result of the media coverage of the nuclear industry because of the earthquake in Japan.
In reality it doesn't look like over the long term it will have an impact, as the need for energy hasn't changed, and the silly idea solar or wind can in any way make a significant impact at this time can't be taken seriously.
Other than that, most of the news in the solar industry is negative.
The continuous high price of energy produced produced by solar continues to be the most negative, and while there are obvious calls for companies to lower prices, that's much easier said than done, and it'll get harder as cash-strapped and debt-laden nations cut back on their subsidies, without which there would be no solar industry, speaking to the extreme weakness and vulnerability it faces, as the market isn't generating demand, but governments are, making solar a very risky proposition indeed.
One report, this one from Reuters, cited unnamed sources saying China is going to double its installation goal over the next five years for solar, a dubious assertion at best, and unproven as to its veracity.
China has already publicly stated it's going to continue on with its nuclear strategy, even with the relatively irrelevant situation in Japan.
It's not irrelevant because of those that may be harmed from valiantly fighting to reduce the damage from radioactive release, but because it has been far over a century since Japan had experienced a earthquake of that magnitude, making it a situation that could never be planned for or necessarily expected to happen more than once in a couple of generations.
So to make decisions and plans based on those times of anomalies isn't something leaders will do, because it isn't realistic, as actions will prove out.
Solar isn't going to gain because of the earthquake in Japan, contrary to the rhetoric governments and politicians are employing at this time.
Think of how people would respond if they aren't allowed to have needed energy. That guarantees nuclear will be a key part of the energy future. Period!
All the hoopla about renewable energy and other dishonest assertions will quietly go away once the situation in Japan fades out of memory, and the reality of energy needs today kick in.
Solar will continue to be a risky and unpredictable sector for years, always getting some positive sentiment when negative news appears to strengthen it, only to fall back again when the emotional response falls by the wayside.
So Trina Solar, along with its peers, will continue to be in for a rough ride as they are dependent on factors like demand which is completely out of there control and not dependent on market forces, but government subsidies and decisions; a fickle scenario at best.
Trina Solar closed Thursday at $30.12, gaining $0.48, or 1.62 percent.
Several factors are in play surrounding the solar sector, with most being negative.
The only element that offers some strength to the industry is what, if any, response will there be from countries as a result of the media coverage of the nuclear industry because of the earthquake in Japan.
In reality it doesn't look like over the long term it will have an impact, as the need for energy hasn't changed, and the silly idea solar or wind can in any way make a significant impact at this time can't be taken seriously.
Other than that, most of the news in the solar industry is negative.
The continuous high price of energy produced produced by solar continues to be the most negative, and while there are obvious calls for companies to lower prices, that's much easier said than done, and it'll get harder as cash-strapped and debt-laden nations cut back on their subsidies, without which there would be no solar industry, speaking to the extreme weakness and vulnerability it faces, as the market isn't generating demand, but governments are, making solar a very risky proposition indeed.
One report, this one from Reuters, cited unnamed sources saying China is going to double its installation goal over the next five years for solar, a dubious assertion at best, and unproven as to its veracity.
China has already publicly stated it's going to continue on with its nuclear strategy, even with the relatively irrelevant situation in Japan.
It's not irrelevant because of those that may be harmed from valiantly fighting to reduce the damage from radioactive release, but because it has been far over a century since Japan had experienced a earthquake of that magnitude, making it a situation that could never be planned for or necessarily expected to happen more than once in a couple of generations.
So to make decisions and plans based on those times of anomalies isn't something leaders will do, because it isn't realistic, as actions will prove out.
Solar isn't going to gain because of the earthquake in Japan, contrary to the rhetoric governments and politicians are employing at this time.
Think of how people would respond if they aren't allowed to have needed energy. That guarantees nuclear will be a key part of the energy future. Period!
All the hoopla about renewable energy and other dishonest assertions will quietly go away once the situation in Japan fades out of memory, and the reality of energy needs today kick in.
Solar will continue to be a risky and unpredictable sector for years, always getting some positive sentiment when negative news appears to strengthen it, only to fall back again when the emotional response falls by the wayside.
So Trina Solar, along with its peers, will continue to be in for a rough ride as they are dependent on factors like demand which is completely out of there control and not dependent on market forces, but government subsidies and decisions; a fickle scenario at best.
Trina Solar closed Thursday at $30.12, gaining $0.48, or 1.62 percent.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Attack of the Worst-Case-Scenario Supporters
As the occasional disaster hits the news cycle and the mainstream media offers its support to its cohorts, the radical environmentalists, we are seeing what is being identified as expanding the boundaries of the former worst-case-scenario measures and putting in place even more stringent ones, which will continue to harm numerous industries, and make them even more costly to operate, which is especially damaging in energy.
The latest is of course the earthquake in Japan, which hadn't happened at that level for well over 100 years. Now talk is some are attempting to increase the already costly worst-case-scenario parameters in order to allegedly keep what has happened in Japan from not happening again, even though we are still in the middle of the narrative and have yet to know or understand the extent of the damage.
This has happened in the past when coal mines experience an explosion causing deaths of workers, as well as in the case of the extremely rare occurrences of oil spills, such as with BP (NYSE:BP).
Now we're not talking here about improving the industry and its practices, everyone is for that. What we're talking about is the attempt to create a perfect world where nothing could possibly go wrong with technology and the things mankind makes. It's Utopian and not a worthy goal, pushing up the costs of doing business prohibitively and also raising the cost of energy or other products produced by those companies and transferring them to consumers.
This is why there is already a growing call for slowing down or ending the nuclear energy sector, as its opponents see this as an opportunity to do it some damage.
The bottom line is while we strive to do the best we can in relationship to safety and making improvements, we can't be perfect, and we can't manage that with which we have no control. It's doubtful anything could have kept the nuclear reactor in Japan from being challenged by an unprecedented earthquake. What do we do next, plan for an earthquake of 11 on the Richter scale? What would that cost? Would nuclear be viable at that point?
We live in a world of scarcity. We must build things that could cause harm to resist the most they can at prices consumers can afford.
After all, an estimated 27,000 or more are dead or missing from the Japan earthquake and tsunami, far more than will be harmed from any problems related to the nuclear accident, which should be relatively few.
No matter how well something is made or the safety precautions put in place, there will always be risk associated with it. To attempt to create products around an unrealistic worst-case-scenario with no or little loss of life as the result, while an admirable goal, isn't a realistic one.
Being alive is a risk, and the huge numbers of people killed annually in auto wrecks aren't causing people to call for the end of driving. Sure improvements will be made, but even here, with the ignorant call for the use of lighter materials in vehicles so they reach mpg standards will result in even more deaths. But somehow this predictable and inevitable carnage is considered acceptable.
That means there are agendas behind all of this, and we need to cautiously watch this new buzzword of best-case-scenario, as it's already being used by those attempting to force the nonsensical and ineffective solar and wind energy upon us, even when in the case of wind turbines they kill millions of bats and birds as well, far beyond the relatively few killed in the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill.
The latest is of course the earthquake in Japan, which hadn't happened at that level for well over 100 years. Now talk is some are attempting to increase the already costly worst-case-scenario parameters in order to allegedly keep what has happened in Japan from not happening again, even though we are still in the middle of the narrative and have yet to know or understand the extent of the damage.
This has happened in the past when coal mines experience an explosion causing deaths of workers, as well as in the case of the extremely rare occurrences of oil spills, such as with BP (NYSE:BP).
Now we're not talking here about improving the industry and its practices, everyone is for that. What we're talking about is the attempt to create a perfect world where nothing could possibly go wrong with technology and the things mankind makes. It's Utopian and not a worthy goal, pushing up the costs of doing business prohibitively and also raising the cost of energy or other products produced by those companies and transferring them to consumers.
This is why there is already a growing call for slowing down or ending the nuclear energy sector, as its opponents see this as an opportunity to do it some damage.
The bottom line is while we strive to do the best we can in relationship to safety and making improvements, we can't be perfect, and we can't manage that with which we have no control. It's doubtful anything could have kept the nuclear reactor in Japan from being challenged by an unprecedented earthquake. What do we do next, plan for an earthquake of 11 on the Richter scale? What would that cost? Would nuclear be viable at that point?
We live in a world of scarcity. We must build things that could cause harm to resist the most they can at prices consumers can afford.
After all, an estimated 27,000 or more are dead or missing from the Japan earthquake and tsunami, far more than will be harmed from any problems related to the nuclear accident, which should be relatively few.
No matter how well something is made or the safety precautions put in place, there will always be risk associated with it. To attempt to create products around an unrealistic worst-case-scenario with no or little loss of life as the result, while an admirable goal, isn't a realistic one.
Being alive is a risk, and the huge numbers of people killed annually in auto wrecks aren't causing people to call for the end of driving. Sure improvements will be made, but even here, with the ignorant call for the use of lighter materials in vehicles so they reach mpg standards will result in even more deaths. But somehow this predictable and inevitable carnage is considered acceptable.
That means there are agendas behind all of this, and we need to cautiously watch this new buzzword of best-case-scenario, as it's already being used by those attempting to force the nonsensical and ineffective solar and wind energy upon us, even when in the case of wind turbines they kill millions of bats and birds as well, far beyond the relatively few killed in the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Entergy (ETR), PG&E (PCG), Edison International (EIX) Focus of Uncertain Risk Factors
Even though it's ignorant of politicians to act as if they have something to do with the nuclear industry because of an unprecedented earthquake in Japan that hasn't' been seen in well over a century, that hasn't stopped those attempting to curry political favor to comment on the event.
Media outlets are also acting like the government has to somehow regulate the industry even more. Regulate it from what? Earthquakes? More people will die from the earthquake and resultant tsunami than any effects of the nuclear industry; even if there are any.
For Entergy Corp. (ETR), PG&E Corp. (PCG), Edison International (NYSE:EIX), they're apparently under scrutiny and may face delays, especially Entergy, as it seeks to renew licenses for four of its reactors. At this time Entergy operates 12 reactors at 10 sites in Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, and Vermont.
Edison International closed Monday at $36.78, dropping $0.98, or 2.60 percent. Pacific Gas & Electric closed at $44.41, down $1.34, or 2.93 percent. Entergy ended the session at $70.09, down $3.60, or 4.89 percent.
Media outlets are also acting like the government has to somehow regulate the industry even more. Regulate it from what? Earthquakes? More people will die from the earthquake and resultant tsunami than any effects of the nuclear industry; even if there are any.
For Entergy Corp. (ETR), PG&E Corp. (PCG), Edison International (NYSE:EIX), they're apparently under scrutiny and may face delays, especially Entergy, as it seeks to renew licenses for four of its reactors. At this time Entergy operates 12 reactors at 10 sites in Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, and Vermont.
Edison International closed Monday at $36.78, dropping $0.98, or 2.60 percent. Pacific Gas & Electric closed at $44.41, down $1.34, or 2.93 percent. Entergy ended the session at $70.09, down $3.60, or 4.89 percent.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Bank of America (BAC) Cuts Entergy (ETR), Scana (SCG) on Japan Nuclear Issues
Challenges from the earthquake in Japan to its nuclear reactors has put pressure on a number of stocks with exposure to the industry, and Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) downgraded Entergy (NYSE:ETR) and Scana (NYSE:SCG) as a result, although numerous other companies with nuclear exposure are down today.
Cuts to Entergy and Scana were based upon the probability they'll have to pay higher approval and relicensing costs in light of the nuclear power crisis and focus in Japan, said the giant bank.
Other stocks being strong affected today are General Electric (NYSE:GE), Edison International (NYSE:EIX), PG&E, Exelon (NYSE:EXC) and Xcel Energy (NYSE:XEL).
Entergy is trading at $69.94, down $3.75, or 5.09 percent, as of 11:55 AM EDT. Scana was at $38.85, down $1.20, or 3.00 percent.
Cuts to Entergy and Scana were based upon the probability they'll have to pay higher approval and relicensing costs in light of the nuclear power crisis and focus in Japan, said the giant bank.
Other stocks being strong affected today are General Electric (NYSE:GE), Edison International (NYSE:EIX), PG&E, Exelon (NYSE:EXC) and Xcel Energy (NYSE:XEL).
Entergy is trading at $69.94, down $3.75, or 5.09 percent, as of 11:55 AM EDT. Scana was at $38.85, down $1.20, or 3.00 percent.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Shaw Group (NYSE:SHAW) Lands Nuclear Deal with Toshiba
A number of interesting factors come with the news that Shaw Group (NYSE:SHAW) has landed a major contract with Toshiba Corporation to provide "engineering, procurement and construction services for new Toshiba Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) nuclear power plants worldwide."
Canaccord said, "Shares of the other Shaw – the U.S. construction and Infrastructure development company – were up on news that the company and Japanese conglomerate Toshiba Corporation announced an expanded global strategic partnership in the nuclear power space. Under the agreement, Shaw will have certain exclusive opportunities for providing engineering, procurement and construction services for new Toshiba Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) nuclear power plants worldwide, except Japan and Vietnam. Shaw immediately will assume the role of engineering, procurement and construction contractor for Nuclear Innovation North America's (NINA) South Texas Project Expansion, which will use ABWR technology for two new nuclear units, as a consortium team member with Toshiba America Nuclear Energy, a U.S.-based Toshiba subsidiary. Shaw will invest $250 million for an ABWR alliance with Toshiba, including a $100 million credit line available to a venture between Toshiba and NRG Energy (NYSE:NRG) that is expanding a nuclear plant in Texas. The credit facility will convert to equity in NINA upon the satisfaction of certain conditions including the project receiving full notice to proceed, which is expected in mid-2012.
This isn't considered a major game-changer for the nuclear and uranium markets, but it shows the scramble by companies to position themselves for the inevitable surge in demand for both.
Shaw's Chairman, President and CEO, J.M. Bernhard Jr., said, "Now with our agreement with Toshiba, Shaw is able to promote not only Westinghouse AP1000(TM), the world's first Generation III+ nuclear technology, but also ABWR, the world's most proven advanced nuclear technology, to our customers."
Shaw closed Tuesday at $32.05, falling $0.39, or 1.20 percent. For them this is a major deal for a long period of time.
Canaccord said, "Shares of the other Shaw – the U.S. construction and Infrastructure development company – were up on news that the company and Japanese conglomerate Toshiba Corporation announced an expanded global strategic partnership in the nuclear power space. Under the agreement, Shaw will have certain exclusive opportunities for providing engineering, procurement and construction services for new Toshiba Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) nuclear power plants worldwide, except Japan and Vietnam. Shaw immediately will assume the role of engineering, procurement and construction contractor for Nuclear Innovation North America's (NINA) South Texas Project Expansion, which will use ABWR technology for two new nuclear units, as a consortium team member with Toshiba America Nuclear Energy, a U.S.-based Toshiba subsidiary. Shaw will invest $250 million for an ABWR alliance with Toshiba, including a $100 million credit line available to a venture between Toshiba and NRG Energy (NYSE:NRG) that is expanding a nuclear plant in Texas. The credit facility will convert to equity in NINA upon the satisfaction of certain conditions including the project receiving full notice to proceed, which is expected in mid-2012.
This isn't considered a major game-changer for the nuclear and uranium markets, but it shows the scramble by companies to position themselves for the inevitable surge in demand for both.
Shaw's Chairman, President and CEO, J.M. Bernhard Jr., said, "Now with our agreement with Toshiba, Shaw is able to promote not only Westinghouse AP1000(TM), the world's first Generation III+ nuclear technology, but also ABWR, the world's most proven advanced nuclear technology, to our customers."
Shaw closed Tuesday at $32.05, falling $0.39, or 1.20 percent. For them this is a major deal for a long period of time.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Denison Mines (NYSE:DNN) Moving Up on Long Term Uranium Prices
The market has quickly changed for the outlook of uranium prices, as they had been dragged down by the low price of natural gas and uncertainty as to the future of nuclear, at least in the short term. Denison Mines (NYSE:DNN) and other uranium miners have continued to push up even in those circumstances, and have received more impetus lately as analysts and commentators focus again on uranium.
TD Newcrest upgraded Denison as a result of the expected long-term price increase in uranium.
They said, "We are increasing our target price our rating following our increased uranium price forecasts. And we have updated our valuation estimates to reflect yesterday’s preliminary resource estimate for the Wheeler River discovery, which was below our estimates and previous company guidance ranges."
Denison was trading at $2.72, up by $0.07, or 2.64 percent at 1:25 PM EST. TD Newcrest raised their price target on them from C$2 to C$3.
TD Newcrest upgraded Denison as a result of the expected long-term price increase in uranium.
They said, "We are increasing our target price our rating following our increased uranium price forecasts. And we have updated our valuation estimates to reflect yesterday’s preliminary resource estimate for the Wheeler River discovery, which was below our estimates and previous company guidance ranges."
Denison was trading at $2.72, up by $0.07, or 2.64 percent at 1:25 PM EST. TD Newcrest raised their price target on them from C$2 to C$3.
Cameco (NYSE:CCJ), USEC (NYSE:USU). Denison (AMEX:DNN), Grab Market's Attention
The nuclear story has been somewhat eclipsed and questioned over the last several months because of the emerging natural gas story and its implications for the industry, but new attention and reminder of China's growing nuclear demand has brought uranium suppliers Cameco (NYSE:CCJ), USEC (NYSE:USU). Denison (AMEX:DNN) into the limelight once again.
Cameco and USEC have attracted options traders, and Denison, along with Cameco, have been upgraded by RBC Capital on the renewed interest in the sector.
The reason nuclear has been overshadowed is there is now uncertainty with the understanding of the enormous supply of natural gas around the world, especially in the U.S., which has changed the energy picture tremendously.
Low-cost natural gas has already caused some nuclear projects to be put on hold, but it's doubtful if the majority of China's nuclear reactors won't continue or start to be built.
That mean uranium prices will continue to go up because Supply of uranium is tight, and China isn't the only country building out nuclear energy.
Even though generally overlooked, Denison and Cameco have still performed strongly since the middle of the summer, while USEC has been pretty much level.
Cameco closed Tuesday at $36.81, gaining $1.07, or 2.99 percent. Denison closed at $2.65, losing $0.15, or 5.36 percent, although they gained that back and more in after hours trading. USEC closed at $5.50, shooting up by $0.32, or 6.18 percent.
Cameco and USEC have attracted options traders, and Denison, along with Cameco, have been upgraded by RBC Capital on the renewed interest in the sector.
The reason nuclear has been overshadowed is there is now uncertainty with the understanding of the enormous supply of natural gas around the world, especially in the U.S., which has changed the energy picture tremendously.
Low-cost natural gas has already caused some nuclear projects to be put on hold, but it's doubtful if the majority of China's nuclear reactors won't continue or start to be built.
That mean uranium prices will continue to go up because Supply of uranium is tight, and China isn't the only country building out nuclear energy.
Even though generally overlooked, Denison and Cameco have still performed strongly since the middle of the summer, while USEC has been pretty much level.
Cameco closed Tuesday at $36.81, gaining $1.07, or 2.99 percent. Denison closed at $2.65, losing $0.15, or 5.36 percent, although they gained that back and more in after hours trading. USEC closed at $5.50, shooting up by $0.32, or 6.18 percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)