Skip to main content

Buffet Keeping "Open Mind" About Investing in Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
Warren Buffet is taking a hard look at the electricity business, including nuclear energy. From a report in this morning's Wall Street Journal (subscription required):
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is willing to invest more money in the U.S. energy sector than the $10 billion to $15 billion he previously discussed and said he sees more opportunities in the utilities industry, including nuclear power.

Mr. Buffett -- whose Berkshire vehicle already plans to buy U.S. utility PacifiCorp from Britain's Scottish Power PLC for $5.1 billion -- also said he would invest in power-transmission lines, broaden energy markets and undertake other efforts to improve electricity reliability after the deal closes. Pledging such moves, which would boost the potential value of his power holdings, also could help him win support from Western state officials who must approve the deal.
Further . . .
In the interview, Mr. Buffett said he is keeping an "open mind" about investing in a new generation of nuclear-power plants that wouldn't create air pollution. Even if there is debate about global warming and the power industry's culpability, Mr. Buffett said, "the price of making a mistake [by not acting] is such that you should err on the side of the planet."
These days, it's hard to tell the difference between Warren Buffet and James Lovelock.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Norris McDonald said…
Warren. Call me. Have your people talk to my people. If the U.S. cannot get its act together and build new nuclear plants maybe you and I should meet with Mexico and Canada to see if we can build along the U.S. border. Then all we will need are the transimission lines to deliver the emission-free power. Call me. (301) 265-8185
June 23, 2005 at 5:21 PM
Rod Adams said…
Warren:
Call me instead. Adams Atomic Engines, Inc was incorporated in 1993 with the epress purpose of designing a new kind of nuclear power system that could be built in smaller sizes to take advantage of serial production.
We believe that our plant designs can adapt to fit into a number of market opportunities that are normally ignored by the nuclear industry, including commercial shipping, power for smaller towns and cities, and power in developing areas or countries.
Rod Adams
President and CEO, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
June 25, 2005 at 3:42 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more