The panel possibly pushed the issue a fraction far with one expert referring to nuclear power as “green energy” – there are more than a handful of people who might suggest an industry with a history of radiation pollution and an ongoing problem with its waste shouldn’t be referred to as ‘green’ – but the point being made was valid.

In a world that is increasingly hostile toward carbon-based fuels, a safer nuclear industry provides the only viable alternative to secure, reliable supply of energy on a mass scale. 

The power available from tapping the huge volumes of natural energy provided by wind and solar sources, amongst others, are no more expensive than nuclear, but it is the lack of reliability and scale in genuinely green technologies at the moment that could potentially undermine economic and social growth if relied upon too heavily.

Uranium One chief executive Feroz Ashraf said as fossil fuels had become more chastened, the world was gradually coming around to the idea of a nuclear future. 

“There is a serious discussion taking place at every level about climate change,” he told Mines and Money delegates. “In countries like China and India, their use of fossil fuels will face greater challenges in the years ahead. That will vary country-by-country.” 

Ashraf said the US in particular was severe on fossil fuels and US president Barrack Obama’s ‘Clean Power Plan’ had opened the country’s eyes to its nuclear base, which supplied 20-25% of US energy requirements currently.

“All these factors indicate nuclear is set to play a greater role,” he said.

Peninsula Energy non-executive chairman John Harrison said in order for nuclear energy to maximise its uptake in this new world, however, it must become more affordable.

“People won’t accept the cost of green energy if it ridiculously expensive,” he said.

“There’s an enormous responsibility on the uranium industry to bring the costs of nuclear power down. Not just because of the pressures of climate change – it is absolutely essential that people can afford green power. 

“Windmills and solar power are expensive enough but nuclear power stations are gigantically expensive.”

Part of this responsibility lies with uranium miners with a greater proportion of cheaper in-situ leach extraction potentially bringing down average production costs.

But with less than 10% of the cost of nuclear energy coming from the production of the raw material, the bulk of the responsibility would fall on utilities.

Berkeley Resources managing director Paul Atherley said the Chinese were leading the way on that front.

“The Chinese are bringing modified designs back to the US and Europe that are cheaper and the Chinese are funding these things,” he said. 

“So green energy is possible because you’ve got lower costs and somebody else is paying for it.”

Uranium Energy Corp chief executive Amir Adnani pointed out to delegates there was another sticking point for a greater uptake of nuclear fuel in the future – the current price. 

He said the timeline to permit a uranium mine added to the cost and the return needed on investment and also added to a lag on new supply coming on stream. The only way to address this issue was to incentivise miners to bring on more production with rising uranium prices, which were, finally, materialising.

“The bear market for uranium started in March 2011 when we had the Black Swan event in Japan at Fukushima,” Adnani said. 

“Every other commodity at that time was still moving up while uranium has had four years of challenges in working out its oversupply situation that has seen mines shut down and higher cost developments have been shelved.”

Today, Adnani said, the boot was on the other foot.

“It’s a difficult time in the mining space at the moment – there’s a lot of blood on the streets,” he said.

“When you consider that the oil price didn’t really correct until late 2014, the uranium price has had a four-year advantage over other commodities to get into a tighter situation than it has been in. 

“Year-on-year, uranium prices are up more than 30%. That goes a long way in a market in which investors feeling like they’re trying to catch a falling knife, particularly with bulk commodities.”

That sentiment was backed by his fellow panellists with Harrison suggesting miners were preparing for an “asymmetric kick” in the price.

Ashraf said the hard rock mines Uranium One was developing in Africa needed a uranium price of around US$50 per pound to break even, while Adnani reported a figure of more like $70/lb was necessary to encourage industry to up its game.

When asked whether China stockpiling of uranium in anticipation of its increasing nuclear capacity could hold back potential price increases, Atherley led the panel’s emphatic response.

“China has a ‘third-third-third’ policy where a third of supply comes internally, a third from overseas and a third from the market,” he said. “[But] they’re now faced with a situation where they’re rolling out a number of reactors – they have 220 reactors on the books in the next 15 years that they have to fill.

“They’ve done a deal with Areva and there are other deals that will be announced – very large transactions that indicate China is very, very short and they will be coming into the market big time. 

“There is going to be a demand shock from China.”

If Atherley and his contemporaries are right, the uranium space could represent one of the only bright spots during a very dark time for miners.