"Stephen Antony is president and CEO of Energy Fuels, a Lakewood-based integrated uranium mining company". If he can talk up a global bonanza of increased nuclear power use, we'll all benefit, but his industry will gain more than most.

How much? Increased demand can raise prices, or — in any mining industry — it can, with slightly delayed effect, stimulate capacity-expanding investment that delivers massive new supply that leaves prices in a state reminiscent of a mother's nicest pair of shoes after daughter has borrowed them without asking and gone to a juvenile, excessively energetic dance. So, long-term, Antony's personal gain is uncertain.

But suppose uranium mining triples, from 60,000 tonnes per year to 180,000, and to pay for this, the price rises 50 percent. That brings the industry's annual sales, worldwide, to $25 billion.

That's about as much as the German government takes in a year from most of its electricity consumers — heavy industry is exempt — and pays, as "feed-in tariff", to producers of solar and wind electricity. They provide about ten percent of the country's electricity.

Nuclear energy is the cheapest source of energy according to the IEA Levelized Cost
of Energy report for 2015 http://tinyurl.com/noc3fcx It is also the safest energy source per unit of energy produced http://tinyurl.com/6m2o7c5 Solar and other renewables fill a niche market but can never be expected to do the heavy lifting (I have a 4Kw Solar PV system) on our grid. Nuclear is also virtually carbon free and has SAVED millions of lives over other energy sourcces, don't believe me? Then read what James Hansen (the father of global warming) has to say http://tinyurl.com/ooqlbpe

The notion that nuclear is necessary is only for those who cling to the old grid structure and ignore advances in PVs, storage, and efficiency.