I predict it will take about ten years to turnaround...one more generation.  You see, this new generation will want its computers, auto's (likely electric). clean energy, yet oil and gas prices will be out of sight.  So this next generation will be saying:

"Damn, what were those thirty, forty and fifty something year olds thinking of.  Were they ever chicken sh_ _ _ , scardy cat, do nothings.  Here they had a solution right in their hands, namely, nuclear power, and they wouldn't adopt it because of a little fright on what to do with the nuclear waste!  We'll solve this technical problem and get on with it."

Yes, Coy, a whole book could be written on the reasons why, but you are witnessing at least two generations of people who will probably be noted by historians for what they didn't do, when it comes to energy, global warming, declining living standards, aging infrastructure, border controls, education, and on and on.  But they were good at lawsuits, safety, NIMBY, risk avoidance (no more diving boards), self esteem (everyone gets troghies) and feeling good.  Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I just don't know how we sixty somethings survived!.

Someday, nuclear power will be booming.  The dilemma is that a high growth area is not always a good investment area.  But I have a small piece of the ETF you mention, and wish there were a better play in nuclear, like your link suggests.  Looks like its coming soon.

It's just disheartening that France is leading the way in nuclear power, about 85% nuclear, now.  The next generation will take over in the USA, and move forward.

BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

retired at 48

Coy,

Thanks very much for pointing out PKN. Here's a LINK to the index components.

I presently have a 1% position in NLR to supplement my energy sector fund holding. Performance has been mediocre of late.

It's a long-term story for sure. 

As you likely know, France has been using nuclear power for decades to generate about 80% of the country's electrical power.  EDF is now bidding to expand into Great Britain for the purpose of building nuclear plants there.

Furthermore, France's Renault is working with Israel on their big electric car experiment.  Their goal is to have 80% of cars running on electricity within 10 years. No more imported oil!  One thing leads to another ...

Although I moved to France about 10 years ago, I still have a US passport.  It's sad to hear that the "can do" American spirit is no longer what it used to be.  However, I think we'll be able to catch up rapidly if there is the political will.  For nuclear we need a national energy policy, not just free markets.  France's success came by building cookie-cutter reactors with a single, very conservative set of control standards.  It's the economies of scale ...

Cheers,

Norbert 

>>> BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

Hey Retired,

Sorry if I find that your opinion typical of the narrow-minded outlook for which the military is famous.  Never a nuclear accident?  How about the Thresher, whose reactor is still sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic?  Sure, I know the ship didn't sink because of a reactor problem.  Doesn't matter.  However, it began, it's a muclear accident now.

This a typical negative externality, of which there is no better example than nuclear power.  The military, in this case, gets the benefit of "cheap" power and someone else pays the long-term environmental cost.  

 Capt Midnight
 

CaptMidnight:

>>> BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

Hey Retired,

Sorry if I find that your opinion typical of the narrow-minded outlook for which the military is famous.  Never a nuclear accident?  How about the Thresher, whose reactor is still sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic?  Sure, I know the ship didn't sink because of a reactor problem.  Doesn't matter.  However, it began, it's a muclear accident now.

This a typical negative externality, of which there is no better example than nuclear power.  The military, in this case, gets the benefit of "cheap" power and someone else pays the long-term environmental cost.  

 Capt Midnight
 

Now let's take this narrow-minded guy, me, (who wasn't in the military) and think outside the box a little.  Capt Midnight, you correctly have a concern regarding potential nuclear accidents.  Here's how the next generation can mitigate this. 

First, current reactor designs are flawed in that they put all their stored energy at risk at one time.  An accident could potentially release all that radioactive energy into a community.  The design is like a large water dam...large breach can release years of stored hydro energy, a potential catastrophe.  Current reactors expose the total fuel (radiation part) to meltdown risk, because utilities wanted to run the plants for several years without refueling.

What one needs is to design a "continuous feed" reactor whereby small amounts of (radioactive) fuel are injected into the reactor, burned quickly, then injected out, with new fuel brought in.  Like the railroad steam engine.  The second train car contained the coal.  The engineer shoveled in a few shovels of coal into the steam engine burner to create steam.  Any explosion was small, not destroying the surrounding community.  The large pile of coal in car 2 is unaffected.  Ditto for nuclear power.  A small, continuous feed reactor could limit problems to very local confines, thus allowing people to sleep at night w/o worry.

Similar, easier tech solutions exist for nuclear waste disposal (more of a political problem). 

BTW reactors in submarines are "small" now.  And not condescending to military personal can go a long way in solving the nations energy problems.  Most people running USA nuclear reactors get their training in the military.

I will have to ponder for awhile regarding how France, and the next USA genarations deal with your words "typical negative externality".  Sounds  a little like military-speak to me.  I'm not sure who is the negative one here.

retired at 48

The challenge  of  nuclear energy is not just the danger of nuclear accident, but how to safely and effectively dispose of high-level radioactive waste. The best we seem to be able to do is bury it deep somewhere. Today's main somewhere is only 100 miles from Las Vegas in a place called Yucca Mountain in Nevada (map)  http://www.nrc.gov/waste/low-level-waste.html

I wouldn't reject, out of hand, the "tree huggers' and other environmentalist's worries about the downside of nuclear energy (not only danger of accident, but health problems associated with radiation leakage and dispersion). IMO we need  to engage the most sophisticated, sober, and cautious minds in solving the problems of nuclear power.   Some scientists themselves say that at this time, given the downsides, nuclear power is an unacceptable risk and is something we shouldn't pretend to be the master of.

I wonder where France buries it's radioactive waste

.~Satori

Hi,

While I certainly agree with most of Norbert's comments, I do think it is worth pointing out that the US produces more nuclear power than does France. (It's a much smaller percentage of the total, but the US still produces more.)

I really like the cookie-cutter approach of France. Hope that is in our future here.

PaulF

retired at 48:

BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

retired at 48

Hey Retired@48 - There's a chance you know me or vice versa, since I'm three years younger than you and I was at Naval Reactors, from 1980-1985, Division 08-I (Reactor Engineering Division) under Dave Pye.   I've lost contact with most of my fellow nukes, though I still keep in touch with our old nuclear engineering prof. at Bettis.

CaptMidnight:

>>> BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

Hey Retired,

Sorry if I find that your opinion typical of the narrow-minded outlook for which the military is famous.  Never a nuclear accident?  How about the Thresher, whose reactor is still sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic?  Sure, I know the ship didn't sink because of a reactor problem.  Doesn't matter.  However, it began, it's a muclear accident now.

This a typical negative externality, of which there is no better example than nuclear power.  The military, in this case, gets the benefit of "cheap" power and someone else pays the long-term environmental cost.  

Actually there are two US reactors on the ocean floor, the Thresher's and the Scorpion's; however, both losses were unrelated to the nuclear power plant, and neither is a "nuclear accident now".   I'd explain it to you, but from your tone I don't think you're really interested.

The US Navy was a pioneer in the development of nuclear power.   Many -- maybe a majority -- of today's commercial nuclear plant operators were trained by the Navy and served aboard ships and submarines before departing to work at utilities.   The Navy developed the first breeder reactor, the Light Water Breeder Reactor at Shippingport PA -- a highly innovative breeder based on a thorium cycle and using light water as a coolant.   It's a great pity that Jimmy Carter killed the US breeder program; the US should have been in the vanguard of a worldwide effort to develop safe, efficient and cost-effective breeder reactor technology to wean ourselves off fossil fuel dependence.   Carter set us back at least fifty years at a possible cost that's hard to imagine.

I don't know what you mean by "The military, in this case, gets the benefit of cheap power".   The Navy single-handedly developed nuclear power in this country at great cost in dollars, industrial manpower and intellectual resources, and it's the rest of the commercial nuclear power industry that has benefited.   The Navy created two dedicated laboratories which for decades were run by Westinghouse and General Electric.  Where do you think those companies gained their expertise in nuclear reactor design?

PaulF:

While I certainly agree with most of Norbert's comments, I do think it is worth pointing out that the US produces more nuclear power than does France. (It's a much smaller percentage of the total, but the US still produces more.)

Paul is correct as this LINK will show.  Note that details for each country are available on links on the "Nuclear Power by Country" page.  This includes fuel cycle and disposal issues.

The World Nuclear Association has a wealth of information available - just Google it.