Warren Buffett Makes a Nuclear Play

Watching the movements of billionaires is the sport of business pages, and no billionaire is watched more closely than Warren Buffett - well, unless it's Bill Gates, to whose foundation Buffett will eventually leave his fortune. So when Buffett makes a buy - or a play, as those same business pages like to say - money sniffing noses scent the air around their hutches.

So without further ado, here's the Wall Street Journal on Buffett's latest play:

So how to read Warren Buffett’s $4.7 billion purchase today of Constellation Energy? Most likely, as a vote of confidence in the future of nuclear power in the U.S.

...

Some 60% of Constellation’s 8,700 megawatts of generation capacity comes from nukes. And the company’s plan is to build more, it told investors in July: “The primary objective has been to develop the strategic option to pursue new nuclear, and we continue on that path.”

As writer Keith Johnson points out, Buffett has been in and out of the nuclear business before, so this latest move might mean that Buffett sees government plugging some economic holes to make building capital-intensive nuclear plants more attractive.

It's a fair comment and we agree with it. While Congress lately has been sidetracked by offshore drilling, any eventual energy bill is going to be all in on renewable energy sources, and nuclear, wind and solar (etc. - hydro, natural gas, "clean" coal) are going to be big winners.

And - how unusual! - so will Buffett.

Buffett himself - almost cheesecake. Well, if Bill Gates can do it - see here (the photo originally came from a Seventeen shoot) - why not Buffett.

Comments

Joffan said…

Buffett seems a little overdressed for the sauna, in that picture.
;-)

I have already seen the fighting retreat of the anti-nukes from their previous delight at Buffett's (MidAmerica's) decision not to continue with new build in Idaho. It seems that we now have a little more of that story - why build a greenfield plant in Idaho when you're about to purchase a compnany much further along with the process in a location with better infrastructure?

September 19, 2008 at 1:08 PM

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog