Skip to main content

Call Your Brokers

Of course, we cannot truly recommend stocks in any company, nuclear or otherwise, since, first, doing so would fall into sketchy ethical waters and, second, we're at best ninnies at understanding the stock market and its movements - not that large careers haven't been made on Wall Street regardless.

However, following the money when it comes to companies investing in nuclear energy and its infrastructure seems to be paying dividends lately. Here is Bloomberg reporting on Toshiba's stock rise:

Toshiba Corp., Japan's largest supplier of reactors and chips, rose to the highest in more than a month in Tokyo trading after saying it's in talks with two U.S. utilities to build nuclear power stations.

[...]

Toshiba is headed for the biggest two-day gain since July 2003 on news it's negotiating the multibillion-dollar reactor deal with Scana Corp. and Southern Co. The shares rose 7 percent yesterday after Hynix Semiconductor Inc. said it will delay production of flash-memory chips, easing oversupply fears.

And here is the Times of London on British Energy:

Shares in British Energy climbed more than 6 per cent on Friday in expectation of a £9 billion bid for the nuclear generator from EDF, the French electricity giant which is Europe's biggest energy company.

Hard to say if this is even such good news since investors find peculiar reasons to punish as well as reward companies, but at the very least, it suggests that nuclear energy isn't frightening investors and, as a bonus, adds another quiver to the bow when the anti-nuke mob grumps about the cost of building new plants.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Guys, I am not so sure that I am thrilled that an non-American company is doing so well. Oh, it's Free Enterprise and all that, but Toshiba's ascendency with its acquisition of Westinghouse (AP1000) and of the ABWR (from GE) leaves the playing field with foreign supplies of new nuclear power plants. Even GE is teamed with the Japanese Hitachi for the ESBWR. And the Japanese Mitshubishi is supplying the APWR and the French Areva the EPR. I feel good about new nukes, but not about the fact that WE in the United States have lost so much of our nuclear expertise.
Anonymous said…
Westinghouse is just owned by Toshiba. All of the design work on AP1000 was done in the US. The parent company plans on expanding Westinghouse's business in the US, not shutting it down. AP1000 is a domestic technology.
Anonymous said…
It's great news that EDF Energy is being seriously considered as one of the candidates to take over British Energy. They have experience of the UK market throught their ownership of London Electricity and they have made a public commitment some time ago that if the UK government gave the green light, they would be serious investors. And time is running out, with our yawning energy gap and desire to become energy independent, not to mention the need to build low carbon sources of electricity.
Anonymous said…
It is a global marketplace, especially for nuclear technology. While having an American company as "national champion" has some emotional appeal, it is not critical to successful deployment of new nukes in the US.

Besides, there is a lot of work to do and much of that will be done in the US by US engineers.

Even GE Nuclear prided itself on being a global sourcing company. Their Lungmen ABWRs had vessels from Japan, pumps from Scotland and Germany and Japan, ASME pipes from the US, control panels from Canada, etc, etc. Was the uranium to be dug from Russian soil?

Why has the US business community lost interest over the years in nuclear power? The answer is low profit margins. American business flocks to profits, as it should. One can argue about planning time horizons and the evil of quarterly profit discipline but if profit opportunities exist, Americans will pursue them. Toshiba is seeing the rewards of its long standing commitment to and investments in nuclear. It doesn't really matter where the company you work for is based so long as they are ethical and deliver.

Joe Somsel

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...