Thanks Niz, good summation in relation to the overall view and...

Thanks Niz, good summation in relation to the overall view and very interesting assessments of each of the companys.

I attended a talk by George Doucalis (hope that is how you spell it) a couple of weeks ago - nuclear physicist who was on the panel advising John Howard, along with Ziggy Switkowski. He provided a detailed analysis of the industry worldwide which accords pretty much with the article you found.

He did not profer a position on nuclear, very careful to remain impartial, but my strong impression after seeing all the facts and stats was that the presentation left the listener with no illusions as to the absolute certainty that nuclear would fill the energy gap. The practicalities of renewables restricted their adoption as a major provider of base load power while geothermal was described as an unproven technology.

The presentation clearly defined the energy gap that is there if you take away coal or reduce its contribution significantly - which has to happen if the world is not going to poison and flood itself.

That gap has to be filled - nuclear is the only available effective technology. This would make the investment in the industry generally appear to be an almost certain winner.

Of course there are risks, but there are also other aspects to the equation which the presentation covered, pointing out the low impact of nuclear on available land, on the environment generally, in terms of CO2 obviously, and in relation to its efficiency, which in most places is delivering 96% avialability, and in terms of its ability to shift capacity to meet demand, which is very easy with a nuclear power station.

The long and short of it is that investment in the industry is a good risk to take - even though the sentimental reactions of the market to nuclear accidents is wildly out of proportion to their actual impact.