logo
Going nuclear: Trump's EOs offer atomic opportunities for Australian uranium industry

Going nuclear: Trump's EOs offer atomic opportunities for Australian uranium industry

News.com.au30-05-2025

President Trump has signed sweeping executive orders promoting the US nuclear industry
The EOs set out a plan to quadruple US nuclear power production
Australia has the largest uranium reserves in the world
The morning of July 16, 1945, a thunderstorm washed the Jornada del Muerto desert clean, delaying a test that would change the course of history.
By about 5am, the skies had cleared and winds had died to nothing.
At exactly 5:29 and 21 seconds, the pre-dawn darkness was engulfed in blindingly bright light, transforming from yellow to red to purple and finally white in a matter of seconds.
A massive shockwave thundered through the earth as a 600-metre-wide fireball punched up into the heavens, scattering what cloud remained.
As the dust settled, where once had stood a 30-metre-tall steel tower topped by a plutonium bomb, there was now only desert sand – transformed into radioactive-green glass.
The Trinity nuclear weapon test was a success. Humans had harnessed the power of the atom, if only for a single, stunning moment.
A nuclear future
Fast forward almost 80 years, and nuclear power produces 9% of the world's electricity generation.
No longer the bogeyman of our grandparents' generation, nuclear power has become a standard component of the global energy mix, regarded with caution and optimism rather than outright fear.
Today, there are about 440 nuclear reactors operating in 31 countries, providing about 25% of the globe's low-carbon energy.
The United States is home to 94 of those reactors across 54 nuclear power plants, but that number is almost certain to rise in the next decade.
US President Trump has signed sweeping executive orders aimed at kick-starting a new era of production within the US nuclear power industry, positioning it as a leader in nuclear technology once again.
The EOs outline a plan to quadruple nuclear power generation in the US from 100 gigawatts to 400GW by 2050.
To achieve that, the US government intends to ramp up power production at existing nuclear plants and initiate construction on at least 10 new large reactors by 2030.
Supported by federal grants and funding from the Department of Energy, much of that new nuclear energy capacity will be used to support data centres and similar Artificial Intelligence infrastructure.
Of course, building more reactors is all well and good, but you still need enriched uranium to power them.
Russia and China dominate enriched uranium production
One of the core focuses of Trump's new nuclear power EOs is divesting uranium imports away from Russia and China, which collectively account for about 57% of the world's enriched uranium production.
They're followed by France (12%), the US itself (11%), the Netherlands (8%), the UK (7%) and Germany (6%).
There are only four major companies that enrich uranium – Rosatom, CNNC, Urenco and Orano, all majority state-owned.
Russia and China also have outsized control over global uranium mining production.
Kazakhstan is the largest uranium miner globally, producing about 43% of total supply, followed by Canada (15%) Namibia (11%) and Australia (9%).
As a former soviet bloc country, Kazakhstan has had close ties with Russia for decades, enriching much of its uranium with its northern neighbour.
It's estimated about half of Kazakhstan's uranium is exported to China, with the rest going to Canada, Europe and the US.
Trump is expected to invoke the Cold War-era Defense Production Act to declare a national emergency over America's reliance on Russian and Chinese enriched uranium and expand domestic conversion capacity.
To that end, the administration intends to build out a commercial nuclear fuel recycling and reprocessing sector, a distinct departure from previous government policy which forbade the use of recycled fuel in commercial reactors.
The EOs also detail a plan to expand domestic uranium conversion capacity and enrichment capabilities, with the end goal of producing enough enriched uranium to meet both civilian and defence reactor needs.
What does it all mean for Australia?
While the social, economic and environmental impacts from this step change in US energy strategy are bound to be far reaching and potentially world changing over the next few decades, today they represent an opportunity.
Although much of it is locked away by state-based uranium mining bans, Australia holds about one third of total global resources of uranium.
South Australia is home to the only producing mines at present, but the deposits themselves are scattered across the country, many in premier mining districts.
As a political, economic and geographically strategic ally of the United States of America, Australia – alongside our cousins over in Canada – is incredibly well placed to take advantage of increased uranium demand.
'The latest Executive Orders reflect a clear, strategic shift in US energy policy,' Recharge Metals managing director Felicity Repacholi said.
'With projections suggesting the US will need up to four times more uranium to meet its clean energy and national security goals, the focus is finally returning to where it all begins – the mine gate.
'You can't expand nuclear energy, conversion, or enrichment capacity without a reliable supply of uranium.'
Stepping into the uranium demand gap
Recharge Metals (ASX:REC) is an ASX-listed uranium and lithium mining company with projects in the US and Canada.
The company's US-based Carter project in Montana holds two uranium deposits with a total of about 5.1 million pounds of the yellow stuff.
REC is currently moving through the permitting process for Carter, a regulatory requirement that could be drastically expedited under Trump's new EOs.
'There's now real momentum from the US government to reduce reliance on foreign uranium supply. That sends a strong signal to markets, developers, and explorers alike,' Repacholi explained.
'The increased regulatory flexibility and positive sentiment are making it more feasible than ever to bring new supply online. The US needs uranium and Recharge aims to be part of that solution.'
Australian uranium companies are already benefiting from a surge in positive sentiment for the industry, which has been under pressure from short sell positions in recent months.
At time of writing, Boss Energy (ASX:BOE) has climbed 24% in the last month, with several fellow ASX uranium companies adding materially to their share prices in the same period.
Deep Yellow (ASX:DYL) shares have jumped 16.7%, Terra Uranium (ASX:T92) 16.67% and Recharge Metals 80% in the last 30 days.
Trump's push to accelerate the US nuclear energy industry isn't without its flaws, and critics no doubt have a raft of valid concerns, but even without this new administrative push the demand for uranium has only been growing.
AI data centres hungry for low-carbon energy
Ever since the artificial intelligence arms race between major technology companies like Microsoft and Apple kicked off, tech companies have been starving for more energy generation capacity.
As many of them have climate and emissions targets, nuclear power has emerged as a highly desirable, low-carbon option.
Last year, Microsoft signed a 20-year deal to reopen the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor, while Google has ordered six or seven small nuclear reactors from California'sKairos Power and Amazon purchased a nuclear-powered data centre from Talen Energy.
Goldman Sachs estimates some 85-90GW of nuclear capacity will be needed just to meet data centre power demands by 2030.
'In the US alone, big tech companies have signed new contracts for more than 10 GW of possible new nuclear capacity in the last year, and Goldman Sachs Research sees potential for three plants to be brought online by 2030,' a research note stated.
The World Nuclear Association's 2023 Nuclear Fuel Report predicts a 28% increase in uranium demand from 2023 to 2030, and a 51% increase from 2031-2040.
That would take global uranium demand from 80,000 tonnes today, to about 102,000 pounds in 2030 and 120,000 pounds by 2040.
Whether it's the Trump Administration or the Nasdaq's Magnificent Seven driving demand, the appetite for uranium is growing, and Australia is very well placed to meet it.
At Stockhead, we tell it like it is. While Recharge Metals is a Stockhead advertiser, it did not sponsor this article.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Experts back NSW Premier Chris Minns' plea for cigarette tax cut despite opposition
Experts back NSW Premier Chris Minns' plea for cigarette tax cut despite opposition

News.com.au

time11 minutes ago

  • News.com.au

Experts back NSW Premier Chris Minns' plea for cigarette tax cut despite opposition

NSW Premier Chris Minns says law-abiding citizens are being 'dragged into the black market' by the federal government's tobacco tax – and he wants that to change. Mr Minns threw down the gauntlet this week when he called for a re-evaluation of the tobacco excise, kicking-off political rows in both Sydney and Canberra. Twice yearly, the federal government sets the excise for tobacco products but in this year's budget recorded a $5.2bn decline in revenue since 2022-23. The NSW Premier has pointed the finger at illicit sales at tobacconists, some 5000 of which have opened up across NSW over the past few years. 'There's a whole bunch of law-abiding people who wouldn't break the law in a million years,' Mr Minns said. 'But, they're being dragged into a black market where they go to the store and they can either buy a $17 packet of illegal cigarettes or a $60 packet of cigarettes. 'It's a no-brainer.' Despite pushback, Mr Minns said every tax change started with 'an idea from someone who calls out a policy that's no longer fit for purpose'. 'So, let's get the ball rolling here because these illegal tobacco stores are pushing out hot bread shops, small businesses and restaurants. 'Because the sales from illegal tobacco are so lucrative, they can just pay the rent at a higher price. 'Something's gone amiss here and we need to have a crack at fixing it alongside our federal colleagues.' Mr Minns earlier signalled that police resources may have to be moved from domestic violence and organised crime to combat illicit tobacco. Mr Minns said the situation was 'intolerable', with 'every to-let shop in every high street in Sydney taken over by a tobacconist'. 'The biggest supporters of a massive excise on tobacco sales in NSW are probably organised criminals,' he said. 'It's a giant black market and major display on every street in every suburb in NSW.' No easy answers On Wednesday, federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers ruled out any change to the excise, saying making cigarettes cheaper wouldn't solve the issue of the booming illegal tobacco trade. In NSW, there are about 19,500 tobacco stores across the state – up from 14,500 a few years earlier – that are overseen by only about 30 health inspectors. A parliamentary inquiry into illicit tobacco sales, pushed for by the NSW opposition, will later this year examine which agency is best suited to the task. Until now, Liberal leader Mark Speakman has remained mum on whether NSW Police should takeover illicit tobacco enforcement from NSW Health. On Thursday, Mr Speakman said illicit tobacco had exploded under Mr Minns and organised criminal gangs were 'raking in big money'. 'They know NSW has minimal enforcement and some of the weakest penalties in the country,' Mr Speakman said. 'While other states have acted to drastically increase penalties and improve enforcement, Chris Minns has been missing in action. 'Now that the federal Treasurer has ruled out changes to the federal excise, Chris Minns needs to tell people how he is going to tackle this issue.' Under law, an individual found to be selling a prohibited tobacco product faces a maximum fine of $55,000 for a first offence. Those laws will change on July 1 when a new tobacco licensing scheme is introduced, requiring businesses to obtain a tobacco retailing licence. Businesses found to be selling tobacco products without a licence will face fines of up to $220,000 and $44,000 for an individual. Nonetheless, the issue sparked a fierce debate in NSW parliament on Wednesday between Mr Speakman and Police Minister Yasmin Catley. Asked about whether anti-gang Taskforce Falcon will expand its remit to illicit tobacco, Ms Catley struck out. 'The leader of the opposition knows that it is Health that enforce illicit tobacco. He knows that,' she said. 'And, he has come in here and has the audacity to come in here and say the police are not doing their job. Well, shame on you. Shame on you. 'NSW Police are doing absolutely everything they can and I am disgusted that the leader of the opposition could come to the NSW parliament and suggest otherwise.' For his part, NSW Health Minister Ryan Park has pointed the finger at the former Coalition government for not earlier introducing a licensing scheme. What do the experts say? Over the past six years, the duty price put on a 20-pack of cigarettes has gone up by about 75 per cent – from $16 to $28. As a result, the price of a packet at the counter sits about $40-50, with the cheapest little more than $30. Illicit cigarettes, meanwhile, cost about $13-15 per 20-pack and up to $20 for premium brands. University of Sydney School of Public Health researcher Edward Jegasothy supported Mr Minns' comments on the tobacco excise. He said there was no solution to the prevalence of illicit tobacco without a re-examination of the 'punitive' policy. 'There's really no ethical basis for the policy because it's essentially just a punitive policy attack on the poor,' he said. Mr Jegasothy said the policy had failed to demonstrate any 'meaningful health benefits and certainly no equitable health benefits'. 'I can't see a solution that doesn't have involve bringing down the tax,' he said. 'It has to be part of the solution … because it is essentially putting more holes in the bottom of the boat.' Mr Jegasothy said the belief that the excise, in increasing the cost of cigarettes, would reduce rates of smoking 'didn't hold water'. With rates of smoking higher among poor and marginalised groups, he instead encouraged solutions that addressed the root causes, 'which is largely poverty'. He urged for a review of the excise as a public health policy, including up until the explosion of black market sales in the early 2020s. That explosion, Mr Jegasothy suggested, came as a result of a combination of factors, including the cumulative impact of the excise and a tightening on loose leaf tobacco. The Australian Association of Convenience Stores has also backed Mr Minns' call for a rethink of the tobacco excise. Chief executive Theo Foukkare said it was 'extraordinary that it's gotten to this point'. 'Tobacco is a price-sensitive consumer product,' he said. 'If you put a price on it that is manifestly higher than what people can afford, they'll find a cheaper alternative and that's where this incredibly dangerous black market is cashing in – and even worse, they're using that money to fund the most atrocious crimes.' What about other states? NSW is far from the only state or territory in Australia where the issue of illicit tobacco has become a hot-button topic in recent years. In Victoria, police have continuingly battled the so-called tobacco wars, conflict between organised crime groups during which stores have been burned. According to Victoria Police, there were about 1300 stand-alone tobacco stores in the state – of these, 1000 sell some kind of illicit tobacco. From July 1, business caught possessing or selling an illicit tobacco product in Victoria face fines of up to $1.7m. For an individual, that penalty is about $830,000 or 15 years in prison. Further north, Queensland Health seized more than 15.2 million illicit cigarettes worth $12.2m across the state between July 1, 2024 and February 28, 2025. Mr Jegasothy said outside of NSW and Victoria, there was little publicly available information about the prevalence of illicit tobacco.

Aldi is known for drawing inspiration from big brands. Here's how experts say the retailer does it
Aldi is known for drawing inspiration from big brands. Here's how experts say the retailer does it

ABC News

time30 minutes ago

  • ABC News

Aldi is known for drawing inspiration from big brands. Here's how experts say the retailer does it

It's no secret that Aldi, the supermarket chain that once had the slogan "like brands, only cheaper", sells products visually similar to well-established competitors. In the cereal aisle of each store, brown boxes of Power Grain are reminiscent of their Kellogg's counterpart, and in the snack aisle packets of Blackstone chips appear to draw inspiration from Red Rock Deli. In the US, blue boxes of Aldi-brand cream-filled biscuits are so similar to Oreos that the company behind the snack giant is suing the supermarket for "blatant copying". It's not the first time the chain has landed in legal trouble over its cheaper, duplicated private-label brands. In Australia, there have been several legal cases against Aldi. But intellectual property and consumer experts are not worried about this case creating legal implications for Australian consumers, who they say are largely unphased by Aldi's "phantom labels". "Ultimately the key reason they [Aldi] do this is about visual congruence," retail expert Gary Mortimer said. "So, when we're shopping in a supermarket, it's historically a mundane, habitual, low-involvement decision-making context. 'You walk down an aisle and you think Cadbury is purple. They [consumers] are influenced by pack colour, brand name or packaging shape." Professor Mortimer said when a consumer saw a product similar to another brand's, they might infer it was the same. "What the danger is, is a customer goes, 'Well, actually, their cereal is just as good as the Kellogg's version,'" he said. "Brands themselves spend a lot of money ensuring their brand is high quality. "Then a new player enters with a private label that looks very similar and, therefore, all of that positioning you've done with that product, the private label takes advantage of that position. "Brands would be concerned about that." Professor Mortimer said the private Aldi label was perceived as higher value than, say, the Coles or Woolworths generic-brands. "You won't get Aldi-brand biscuits, you'll get Belmont." In fact, they are so popular, other chains are taking a leaf out of the Aldi playbook, creating their own, cheaper, private brands. He said Woolworths and Coles had created private labels that sold cleaning products and pet food. "To some point, supermarkets understand we won't feed our dog Woolworths pet food but we might feed them a cheaper brand like Baxter's, which is actually Woolworths owned." With Choice ranking Aldi as the cheapest supermarket in Australia in its past five surveys, legal experts say the occasional legal challenges Aldi faces for sailing "close to the wind" with its packaging and branding are largely justified. While Aldi has faced legal challenges in Australia in the past over its packaging and the likeness of its products to rivals, the University of Sydney's Fady Aoun says it is far more challenging to take Aldi to court here. The senior lecturer in intellectual property law said this was because Australia's legal systems were vastly different to those in the US, for instance. "In the realm of trademark law and other forms of forms of policing commercial practices, American law is vastly different to Australian law," he said. "And, in addition to trademark infringement, they have something called unfair competition, which Australian law doesn't adopt "Their trademark law is far more protective of arguably trading interests and goes further than the Australian law in this respect." But there are several ways legal action can be pursued. Last year in Australia the company Hampden Holdings and Lacorium Health Australia successfully sued Aldi Foods for breach of copyright in relation to children's food products. Hampden licenses intellectual property to Every Bite Counts, which sells children's food products under Baby Bellies, Little Bellies and Mighty Bellies, which are sold in Australia. In 2018 and 2019, Aldi engaged the company Motor Design to re-design the packaging for its baby food and product range. The case found that in April 2019, Aldi instructed Motor Design to reuse the Little Bellies brand as the "benchmark" for the re-design of the packaging for its Mamia dry food range. The packaging and labelling were put side by side in court documents to highlight how similar each looked. "Aldi, they sail close to the wind," Dr Aoun said. "They sometimes overstep the mark. Other times they're just short of what is impermissible. "I suspect there is a strong legal department there and that's their business mode." The court found Hampden and Lacorium's owned the packaging designs. Aldi is currently appealing against the court decision. It was approached for comment. "The typical claims in Australia here are trademark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and — much more difficult — the common law action of 'passing off'," Dr Aoun said. "Hampden is just a company that holds IP rights and they are the holder of the copyright," Jane Rawlings, an intellectual property barrister said. "So they weren't suing on the trademark; they were suing on the look of the packaging, how it presents itself to consumers. "That was successful because the court had found Aldi had deliberately modelled their snacks on the Baby Bellies." Separately, Aldi won a federal court appeal in 2018 against a deceptive conduct ruling over hair care products brought against the supermarket chain by Moroccanoil Israel. Dr Rawlings said this was harder to prove. "You have to show there is reputational goodwill in the brand, and in this purpose it is by using a similar name, brand or look that misleads consumers and that damages the goodwill of the brand because they're being diverted to a cheaper alternative or because the brand owner is losing sales," she said. "You have to still prove the conduct has been deceptive and what Aldi do is tread a fine line where they've got a lookalike brand but it's not enough to argue consumers are being misled." In the UK in 2023, Cider producer Thatcher's successfully won a legal battle against Aldi, claiming it "copycatted" its Cloudy Lemon Cider in "taste and appearance". This was a lookalike trademark case that argued Aldi's Taurus drink had been "deliberately riding on the coat-tails" of the cider company's reputation as a brand. Dr Rawlings said she believed registering a brand as a trademark was one of the best ways to protect it. "To be honest, and if I were a brand owner trying to protect the look of packaging, I'd be looking very seriously at trademarking registration because it's relatively cheap and then you can basically sue on the trademark registration." Ultimately, experts agree the impact on consumers is relatively low. "What Aldi will typically say is our consumers are not confused [and that] while they may draw inspiration from leading brands there's no confusion people know what they're getting," Dr Aoun said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store