3 Reasons to Avoid Nuclear Power
There are three remaining reasons that I don’t think nuclear is a place investors should be looking for value right now.
For safety’s sake
Whether it’s mechanical failure, human error, or a natural disaster, there are major risks associated with nuclear plants. Boosters may count these as one-time events, but they’ve happened more than once, and with Japan looking at billions of dollars to rebuild what was lost after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, the risk should be a major factor in any investment.
Costs are rising, not falling
Compared to other alternative energy sources like wind and solar, whose costs are falling, nuclear is headed in the wrong direction.
It’s a dying business
A look at how financial markets view nuclear power may give even the most hardened supporters pause. Rating agencies have downgraded companies with nuclear assets, and nuclear stocks have plummeted this year.
Investors should also consider that in the past year, U.S. nuclear power generation wasdown 2.7% and worldwide capacity has fallenfrom 375.5 GW to 365.5 GW. It’s true that nuclear is out of favor, and according to trends, renewable energy is picking up the slack.
Foolish bottom line
Despite backlash from commenters when I askedif nuclear was really safe, it turned out it hasn’t been for investors since Japan’s disaster. There hasn’t been a bounce back, and shares ofCameco(NYS:CCJ) ,Uranium Energy(NYS:UEC) , andUranerz Energy(NYS:URZ) have continued to slide.
See full article from DailyFinance:http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/12/09/3-reasons-to-avoid-nuclear-power
Adding to the Case Against Nuclear – Enformable
- It is not too cheap to meter
- It heavily effects the ability of a nation to react responsibly during crisis
- It is not sustainable
- Fast Breeders are farther away today than ever, not already a well implemented technology as many nuclear proponents used to fantasize about
- The attitudes displayed by pro-nuclear forces are proposed to be based on ‘scientific method’, however they are too dogmatic
Likelihood is not fact, and an argument based on likelihoods may be as wrong as the wildest guesswork. Moreover it MAY MISS THE WHOLE POINT, as the microscope might explain the details of a paint on a painting, but is unable to show the whole picture.
These scientists and engineers attempt to control life by ruler and scale, predicting the world around them.
Their hard-headed, tough-minded attitudes towards any cracks in ‘the need for nuclear power’ exemplifies their fascination with ‘teology’.
The fact remains, programming of matter must be achieved by waves of which are much faster than vibrations of matter. Reference a driver in a car, he is only able to operate it, because his mind is capable of thinking faster than the engine can run.
The nuclear industry has always been based on preconceptions, likelihoods, postulations, and reductionism, to name a few. A modern regulator is nothing more than an over-glorified accident inspector, who is in fact PROUD OF THE ACCIDENT.
[toggle_simple title=”Related articles” width=”600″]
- AREVA to supply safety and operational equipment to Chinese Nuclear Stations (enformable.com)
- Saudi Arabia debates safety of nuclear power post Fukushima (enformable.com)
- Expert claims Australia sales of Uranium to India Will Yield Minimal Dollar Profit (enformable.com)
- Analyst – Nuclear Power attractive to owners – Does not lower energy costs (enformable.com)
- Russia winds bid to build first nuclear power plant in Ghana (enformable.com)
- Japan Government Faces Mounting Issues After Nuclear Crisis (enformable.com)
- NRC finds Oconee Nuclear backup safety system not functional (enformable.com)
- June 2011 – Nuclear Power In Korea (enformable.com)