Russia, China to Lead Construction of Two Kazakh Nuclear Plants
Updated on
Save
Kazakhstan has selected Russia's Rosatom to lead a consortium for the construction of its first nuclear power plant. The China National Nuclear Corp. expected to be lead a group to build a second atomic facility.
The Russian proposal emerged as the most competitive among contenders that included the Chinese company as well as Électricité de France and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, Kazakhstan's nuclear power agency said in a press release.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Where Will Cameco Stock Be in 3 Years?
Key Points Cameco's stock recently hit an all-time high. Uranium's soaring commodity price is driving that rally. But it still looks reasonably valued relative to its growth potential. 10 stocks we like better than Cameco › Cameco (NYSE: CCJ), one of the world's top uranium miners, usually isn't a high-growth stock. But over the past three years, its price surged about 250% and now hovers near its all-time high. The S&P 500 only rose 60% during the same period. Let's see why Cameco's stock crushed the market, and if it can keep climbing over the next three years. A look back at Cameco's lost decade Cameco, which is based in Canada, owns uranium mines and mills across Canada, the U.S., and Kazakhstan. It mined roughly 17% of the world's uranium in 2024, making it the second largest uranium miner after Kazatomprom (OTC: NATK.Y), Kazakhstan's national mining company. From 2011 to 2021, Cameco's annual revenue dropped from $2.41 billion to $1.18 billion (in U.S. dollars) without a single year of revenue growth. That decline started after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011, which triggered a global collapse in uranium prices as many countries cautiously reined in their nuclear energy plans. Uranium's spot price plunged from more than $70 per pound before the Fukushima disaster to less than $20 in 2017, and Cameco was forced to suspend work at its biggest mines and throttle back its production to conserve its cash. Before the uranium market could recover, the COVID pandemic disrupted the market again and forced the company to temporarily shut down more of its mines. The weak Canadian dollar exacerbated that decline because the miner sold its uranium in U.S. dollars. What happened over the past three years? But from 2021 to 2024, Cameco's revenue had a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 29% in Canadian dollar terms. Its gross margins also expanded to the double digits over the past two years. Metric 2022 2023 2024 Revenue growth 27% 39% 21% Gross margin 0.1% 21.7% 25% Data source: Cameco (all figures in Canadian dollar terms). That robust recovery was driven by uranium's spot prices, which soared from $29.63 in January 2021 to $78.50 this June. That rally prompted Cameco to restart its mining operations at McArthur River in Australia and Key Lake in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan in 2022 after being suspended in 2018. It also partnered with Brookfield Asset Management to acquire the nuclear power plant designer and builder Westinghouse Electric in late 2023. Its new 49% stake in Westinghouse should offset the volatility of its core mining business and make it the top uranium supplier for those plants. Several catalysts drove uranium's price higher over the past few years. The global supply shrank as Cameco and Kazatomprom curbed their production, but the demand rose as more countries initiated new nuclear energy plans and resumed their idled projects. Other global challenges are keeping uranium prices elevated. Russia, which was a major exporter of enriched uranium products and services to the U.S. and Europe, was hit by sanctions and export bans after its invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. Kazatomprom's supply chain issues and a coup in Niger (another key producer of uranium) in 2023 further reduced the global supply while driving more nuclear energy companies to buy their uranium from Cameco. What will happen to Cameco over the next three years? The bulls expect uranium's price to soar even higher as the market's demand continues to outstrip its available supply. The rapid growth of the cloud and AI data center markets -- which are driving more companies to consider using next-gen nuclear energy solutions like small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors -- could amplify those gains. Looking ahead, Cameco's 49% stake in Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) -- its uranium enrichment joint venture with Silex -- could transform it into a one-stop shop for nuclear power as it integrates those uranium enrichment capabilities into its core mining and conversion businesses. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expects the world's nuclear capacity to expand by up to 2.5 times from 2024 to 2050, so Cameco could still have plenty of room to grow over the next few decades. From 2024 to 2027, analysts expect Cameco's revenue to have a CAGR of 8% (in Canadian dollar terms) as its adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) have a CAGR of 16%. Its growth should cool off as it laps the big spike in uranium spot prices, the restarting of its mines, and its investment in Westinghouse Electric, but it still looks reasonably valued at 25 times this year's adjusted EBITDA. So even though Cameco's stock is trading near its all-time high, it could rise even higher over the next three years. Should you invest $1,000 in Cameco right now? Before you buy stock in Cameco, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Cameco wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $636,628!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,063,471!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,041% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Leo Sun has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Brookfield Asset Management and Cameco. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Where Will Cameco Stock Be in 3 Years? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nuclear power is the future Britain rejected. Now it's time for us to think again
Britain was once poised to be the world leader in clean energy. We split the atom, pioneered the first commercial nuclear power station, and by 1988 had built 18 reactors, the third highest number in the world. By the mid-1990s, we were producing enough energy to supply a quarter of the country's electricity. But then, even as climate change was mov ing from being a contested idea to an accepted one, progress stalled. We stopped building entirely. Now we get just 14% of electricity from this source, and five of our six remaining plants are due for retirement at the end of the decade. Last week Ed Miliband optimistically announced the dawn of a new 'golden age' of nuclear power. His hopes rest on a single Suffolk megaplant, Sizewell C – already delayed and now to be around 12 years in the making, if finished on time. And that looks far from guaranteed. After 10 years of planning, and nine of building, Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, pictured above, missed its deadline for completion this year. It has now been pushed back to 2031, with such an expanded budget that it is to be the most costly power plant in history. How did we lose our advantage? Of all the possible ways to gather clean energy, nuclear power seems the most likely to allow us to dispense with fossil fuels completely. Wind and solar power can be unreliable – especially on a cloudy island with such variable weather – and backup systems can't always compensate, as hydroelectricity stores and batteries run down in a few hours. In fact, wind farms must actually shut down when gusts are too strong. Meanwhile, a single nuclear power station creates enough energy to provide power for 2 million average Europeans. Over time, it is also the lowest-price way to garner low-carbon energy, and it has the lightest ecological burden. Steep initial costs are talked about as the central challenge to building more power stations – and that is the block against which political will has tended to founder. Long and risky construction processes mean that the price starts high and can rise astronomically if things go wrong. But British projects are also among the most expensive in the world. Only America does worse. The UK has more stringent safety rules than many other countries – and in some, such as China, construction workers earn less than their British counterparts. High-paying Finland and France build more cheaply, as does South Korea, where costs are roughly a quarter of what they are in Britain. Instead Britain may be missing the secret to success, which – according to the thinktank Britain Remade – is repetition. South Korea builds fleets of plants for every design, relying on economies of scale and learning from practice. This provides workers with standard protocol and a steady pipeline of projects. France bulked up its supply in the 1970s with a similar approach, building 56 reactors with an average construction time of six years each. But Britain seems to have forgotten how to build nuclear power stations. Each project must start again from scratch. That is the direct result of a full 20-year hiatus. Britain's underlying problem with nuclear has not in fact been technical, but psychological. The trigger was two high-profile disasters, both of which sharply halted nuclear progress all around the world: Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. The first was the result of a human mistake – operators disabled safety systems during a test – combined with a flawed reactor design; the second was caused by an earthquake and tsunami. The horrific results were splashed across newspapers, and reporting continued for years. But in some countries the effect has lingered longer than in others. People fear nuclear for much the same reason they worry about shark attacks In the UK, according to a recent study, public fears were further stoked after Chernobyl by an unusual alliance of environmental activists and fossil-fuel interest groups. The Thatcher government was in the midst of a fight with the miners' unions when Chernobyl melted down. The disaster became part of that battle. Analysis shows that MPs sponsored by miners' unions were much more likely to speak out against nuclear energy; newspapers with ties to fossil fuel published more anti-nuclear articles. Britain's sluggishness can also be explained partly by the political makeup of its green groups, which might have formed the vanguard of those pushing for this clean energy solution. But an ideological split emerged, dominated by those who preferred to campaign for reduced energy consumption rather than technological solutions. Environmentalists had turned against nuclear power in the early 1960s – psychologists have tracked its association among these groups with the nuclear bomb. With few green champions for nuclear, Britain turned back to fossil fuels. As a result, there has been an enduring idea in Britain that nuclear is 'very unsafe' – similar to Germany, which has all but shut down its nuclear capacity since Fukushima. This compares with 15% of Danish and 11% of Swedes. But this does not reflect reality. Hugely improved safety methods mean the likelihood of another disaster is extremely minimal. Calculations of deaths per terawatt-hour generated put nuclear power, at 0.03, on a par with wind turbines, which is at 0.04, (mostly from accidents, such as drowning in the process of setting them up). For coal, this rises to 24.6, owing to pollution. In fact living near a coal power station exposes people to more radiation than living near a nuclear one – but both are low, at around 0.01mSv (millisieverts, a measurement of radiation) a year. For comparison, those living in Cornwall receive about 6.9mSv a year Risks are tough to calculate correctly. We tend to overestimate the danger of the dramatic and unfamiliar. People fear nuclear power over coal power for much the same reason they worry more about shark attacks than traffic accidents. But fossil fuels are much more dangerous, by any standard. One back-of-the-envelope calculation from a recent report finds that the swap in nuclear power stations for fossil fuels after Chernobyl has resulted in the loss of '318 million life years' since 1986. Yet support for nuclear power is rising across the world, including in Britain. Why? Well, perhaps the most efficient way to shift perception of one threat is for another, larger one to come along . France's success can be explained by the oil crisis in 1973: the country was almost completely reliant on foreign oil; that problem ate the nuclear one. Now we are going through a similar moment of our own. Academics have used the term 'reluctant acceptance' to explain the shift in support as climate risks ramp up. But the real change may have come since the energy threats posted by the war in Ukraine. Campaigners should remember that their greatest advances are made not in the field of science, but in politics. Photograph by Adrian Dennis/AFP
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
GE Vernova Inc. (GEV) Is The Only One With The Power, Says Jim Cramer
We recently published . GE Vernova Inc. (NYSE:GEV) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. GE Vernova Inc. (NYSE:GEV) is a power generation products provider that has primarily been in the news recently due to its exposure to nuclear power and the resulting catalysts from the AI data center build out. The firm's shares have gained 86% year-to-date and jumped by a strong 14.6% in July. GE Vernova Inc. (NYSE:GEV)'s shares gained after it raised annual forecasts during its second quarter earnings. Cramer's been a long-time fan of the stock, and he shared why: 'Well I'm so glad you brought it up because I've got to tell you I spoke to Scott Strazik this morning from GE Vernova. Look, you may have trouble getting GPUs, from Jensen, try to get the power, from GE Vernova, which is the only one who really has any. I mean, David, the backlog. Look he's talking every day to Amazon, he talks to, well actually to every hyperscaler, but ones that are top of mind is Microsoft. David, there's just not enough power. There's not enough power. Previously, the CNBC TV host commented on GE Vernova Inc. (NYSE:GEV)'s earnings report before it was released: 'No, I think at this point, we're going to wait for GE Vernova to come in. We had a great club meeting on Friday, and I really just kind of hang my head in shame that I didn't even buy more, but there's nothing to do. This thing is such a horse. It's just been a parabolic move, up 70%. We're going to get a report… next week. Maybe what we say is, let's hear what they have to say.' While we acknowledge the potential of GEV as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Sign in to access your portfolio
