The Fukishima power plant catastrophe won’t destroy the nuclear power industry, just as...

The Fukishima power plant catastrophe won’t destroy the nuclear power industry, just as the BP disaster didn’t wreck the offshore energy industry. For those who buy into Jeff Reeves' thesis, consider these five nuclear stocks: Cameco (CCJ -1.6%), U.S. Enrichment (USU -1.8%), Babcock & Wilcox (BWC -0.7%), Fluor (FLR -0.1%) and General Electric (GE -1.7%).
From other sites
Comments (5)
  • Bozerdog
    , contributor
    Comments (463) | Send Message
    "The Fukishima power plant catastrophe won’t destroy the nuclear power industry,", but the nuclear power industry may very well destroy Japan...
    16 Mar 2011, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • Richard Mackenzie
    , contributor
    Comments (453) | Send Message
    Comparing it to the Gulf drilling disaster is way off base. We are already heavily dependent on drilling, and there was just no way we would realistically see that practice killed! No way. Nuclear is already under pressure, and to see the stop of all future permitting for new plants (as opposed to new drilling permits) is entirely possible (if we let the fear rule us). It really could hurt nuclear quite a bit if we don't keep our heads. Very poor comparison choice Jeff!
    16 Mar 2011, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • frosty
    , contributor
    Comments (722) | Send Message
    3 Mile Island killed the nuclear industry in America for 40 years, Chernoble killed it in Europe. Fukishima will kill it everywhere for the foreseeable future - unless, of course, you're a REALLY, REALLY long term player then this is your opportunity to buy on the dip.
    16 Mar 2011, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (1114) | Send Message
    Correction: TMI killed new construction in USA, but today nuclear power is almost 20% of US electric generation.
    Chernobyl stopped it in germany, but France still has 70% of their power from safe nuclear energy.


    The trend is clear: These events impede new developments but not ongoing plants.
    20 Mar 2011, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3134) | Send Message
    11 people died on that oil rig, yet that aspect of that disaster was understated in the media. Contrast that with Japan where the impact on people has yet to be determined. It does not help that their is growing distrust in the apparent lack of information in Japan, so public sentiment is moving against future nuclear power. Those plants that continue to operate can expect higher costs in order to ensure that their safety standards and ability to withstand natural disasters is improved. Those higher costs could make other forms of energy production much more favorable. There has been a vast amount of financial resources pushing big projects in nuclear energy, often with great lobbying power, but when the public is less support, it will be tougher to convince anyone to build more nuclear plants.
    16 Mar 2011, 05:57 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs