Why the Nuclear ETF Could Be Powering Up 8 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The Group of Eight Industrialized nations gathered in Rome to discuss possible energy reforms concerning nuclear energy, and the general consensus was to create and not destroy. The related ETF is set to benefit from the world’s choice of nuclear energy as a power source. Governments from the Group of Eight, along with other nations, urged the world to keep investing in new and cleaner energy sources, despite the economic crisis. According to the Associated Press, G-8 ministers and officials from 15 more countries said governments and businesses must also work to keep energy prices stable or risk hampering the economic recovery.
Delegates in Rome were opposed to North Korea’s reported nuclear test, as the South Korean and Japanese representatives calling on Pyongyang to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Diversification of energy sources will help keep prices of energy stable and contribute to a quicker recovery. Meanwhile, China has 11 nuclear reactors in operation at six power plants, all on the coast, making up 2% of the country’s energy needs. Rumor has it that 22 reactors, double the number now in operation, are already under construction, reports The Australian for The Wall Street Journal.
The surge in coal-fired power plants should slow from 2011, as the nuclear power plan is under revision in China. In the meantime, however, China is set to install more than 50 gigawatts of new coal generation this year and in 2010.
- Market Vectors Nuclear Energy (NLR): up 20.5% year-to-date
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
Even Chernobyl was an anomaly. Built with the poorest standards by an inept government. And in this country, the only thing Three Mile Island killed or injured was the nuclear industry.
On May 29 09:17 AM Pete Rowberry wrote:
> I find the inclusion of nucelar power into any discussion related
> to ethical trading to be problematic. We need to examine: i) the
> potential long term damage to our children of nuclear power, ii)
> the failure of the industry to build any reactors without heavy public
> subsidies, iii) the huge delays in the delvery of new nuclear in
> Flameville, France and OK3 in Finland, iv) the failure of contractors
> in Finland to meet regulatory standards first of the concrete foundations
> and laterly of welds in safety critical system, and v) the standards
> employed at uranium mines and fuel enrichment plants in the less
> welld developed world before we can pronnounce them as ethical.
Oh, geezuz, not this sh&t again! I was around -read "intimate" with- nuclear weapons, and both nuclear propulsion and power generation, for my ten years in the US military. I also had a business in civilian life that made components for nuclear electrical power generation. This power plant is still in operation. The continued resistance to nuclear power in this country is the latent political "radioactive" contamination that is left over from the former Soviet Union and the "Fellow Travelers" who were charged by their communist handlers to promote the anti-nuke propaganda in the US. As does Pete Rowberry, above.
The USA was restrained by the Left from building nuclear power plants so that the Soviet Union could advance industrially by building as many as possible with little political and/or engineering oversight. Chernobyl was the result. The Three Mile Island "incident" is to Chernobyl, what Abu Ghraib is to Auschwitz.
The resistance to US nuclear power is the mindless narrative of the left still trying to restrain the US economy while favoring the (now extinct) Soviet Union. They just don't know that the Stalin show is over and the Red Tent has been folded up and moved on to reincarnate into the crescent religion.
As for me, having had actual experience and intimate proximity with nuclear power, in all its forms, and having had two kids - now grown - with no birth defects, I would gladly live right next to any nuclear power plant built in the USA as long as I had a place to keep my horses!
your children getting cancer. What is more that risk is decreased once the nuclear power station ceases to generate (There are too many sources to quote, but try www.radiation.org/read... and www.radiation.org/pres... for starters).
Buckoux's comment that "I worked in the industry for years and it hasn't done me any harm sounds" like the cry that we heard from the ninety year old forty a day cigarette smoker. His protestations do not mean that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Buckoux and his kids have not been affected, and I for one am glad about that, but what about the cases of rare melanomas that have occured in nuclear power workers and which cannot be reported as "industrial diseases" as the individual link cannot be "proven" beyond doubt.
Why did it take so long to come to the conclusion that tobacco is dangerous? The tobacco industry was spending huge amounts on blatant propaganda to save their companies and stop them being sued in the courts. This is just what the nuclear industry is doing now.
The only retraint I wish to put on the world and its economic system (not just the US) is that we should not persue courses of action which leave the world a worse place after they are done. I want my relatives to inherit a better, not a worse world. I thought that that was what ethical trading was all about, but I may be wrong.
Your use of the verb "kill" with "facts" is interesting. But yes, lets ignore the rhetoric and look at some facts. First of all, I have serious doubt about the organization that you reference by hyper link, the: radiation.org/pres...is totally without bias? Their mission statement condemns their veracity, i.e.:
"The Radiation and Public Health Project is a non profit group of health professionals and scientists based in New York that studies health risks from radioactive exposures to nuclear reactors and weapons tests. RPHP members have published 23 medical journal articles on the topic."
Is a non profit group without agenda? As such, not unlike the NRA, any statistics put forth regarding their chosen subject is, and should be, automatically suspect. In short your sources do not impress met!
Has any "org" ever studied the amount of childhood cancer of children living downwind of coal fired power plants that emit the radioactive isotope Carbon-14? Radiation.org makes no mention of any such study, therefore, by this omission, one can conclude that this organizations agenda is not about ANY source of radiation, but ONLY radiation from nuclear power plants. Furthermore, your other indictments are more anecdotal than insightful. Do nuclear workers expose themselves to the sun in a manner different than other workers? Just what about a nuclear power plant environment is truly different than other occupations and their possible exposures to natural radiation such as airline travel? How many nuclear workers have died in comparison to high rise office workers killed by Arabs in airliners? (I can use hyperbole as well as you) You don't know, Rowberry, you're just guessing! Your argument, in reply, is wanting in unimpeachable facts but not in emotional fiction.
Let me reinforce my original statement by saying that I would rather live with a nuclear missile warhead, of tactical size in its transport container, reposed in my living room than have an attorney spend the night in my home. I am "dead bang certain" of what the warhead will do and that is absolutely nothing. On the other hand, if the attorney should injure himself due to his own carelessness, and none of my negligence, he will most certainly sue me!
As for "ethical trading", I have never seen an example that did not have a nefarious political agenda driving it. Including the divestiture US university's in South African investments. It was NOT because of apartheid, but the price of gold. Enjoy the "dark", Rowberry.
I live downwind from the biggest nuke in the country and as a child, went on a field trip to the first commercial nuke.
The govt has severely mismanaged the nuclear power inductry in this country. From not closing the fuel cycle with breeders due to fear of nuclear proliferation (hear that Korea), to the management of waste and (partially) spent fuel, to the overly large and complex designs of the plants themselves.
If there was actual danger from being near a reactor, I expect the young Navy sailors on subs and carriers would be the canaries.
Let's see, nukes generate electric power. High voltage transmission lines are all around them. Many similar studies have marginally shown that exposure to EMF from these lines (independent of power source) may cause childhood leukemia.
Let's ban electricity.
Childhood leukemia cancer clusters are a well established phenomena around the country. Most have been attributed to chemical contamination of the environment. This is especially true in New Jersey which could be considered one big cluster.
In my experience, the biggest problem with these nuclear plants is poor choice on siting, mostly due to water issues and thermal effluent. That largest nuke actually cools from treated wastewater effluent and towers since it sits in the middle of a desert. Other rejected plants have been proposed for small recreational lakes (rejected for obvious reasons.)
Ethical investing is all well and good, and if that's your thing, then good for you. But stop preaching to the converted. And recognize that the objective of investing for most investors is to make money, not to generate a "feel good, holier than thou" sense of well-being. May not be right, but that's the way it is.
And, importantly, don't judge a prospective investment solely on the "green" merits of it - it'll lead you astray.