Global investors circle new nuclear markets

[Dogmudgeon]

When financiers DISapprove of nuclear energy, it's seen as proof that the collective wisdom of the vibrant marketplace has rendered a wise verdict.

But when financiers approve of nuclear energy, it's seen as proof that our evil corporate masters are trying to enslave the powerless masses with "nucular" power.

Here's a news story that shows a decidedly mixed picture -- everything except support for the talking point that "nuclear energy is dead". Seems that the old gray mare still has a few half-lives left in her.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_Global_investors_circle_new_nuclear_markets_1806081.html">Global investors circle new nuclear markets
18 June 2008

Investors see the USA as the best place in the world to engage in nuclear build projects. Next come the UK and China, followed by South Africa. Banks and utilities, however, are yet to make serious moves.

The list of countries comes from Ernst & Young research commissioned by the UK government, a summary of which was presented in London today by Adam Dawson of the country's department of business and enterprise as part of SMI's inaugural Financing Nuclear Power conference.

Delegates heard that there is widespread confidence in the new nuclear power markets among investors. Pieter Stor of RBS presented ABN Amro research which had nuclear power as the cheapest generation source of all when carbon costs were taken into account. He said his figures were based on conservative values of $60 per barrel of oil and €30 ($46) per tonne of carbon dioxide and concluded: "Why invest in nuclear new build? Because it's deemed to be profitable."

...

Dawson said he was pleased the UK came in as the second best place to do nuclear business, with China at a similar level. Next he said South Africa was moving up rapidly, and was ahead of European countries which had the possibility of multiple new reactors. He added that the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states were not yet on the list, but they probably would be soon.

The US government's financial support for nuclear has helped to overcome nervousness among companies of being the first to try new regimes, said Malcolm Keay, a fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Referring to the USA and the UK, he said that once firm orders are made for new nuclear plants there could be a "stampede" from companies that don't wish to be left behind. Similarly, the current position of many companies expressing interest in nuclear is in some part due to strategic reasons. The real state of the market, he said, would only be known once companies begin to take hard decisions in a few years' time.

If you want to read the bad stuff, you have to visit the web page.

--p!

[philb]

1. No nuclear plant could or would be built without Gov't subsidies