No Nukes?

Socially responsible investors are often the people you’ll see sitting before their computers wearing “Remember Chernobyl!” or “Hell no, we won’t glow,” tee shirts. Indeed, they’ve long steered clear of nuclear energy investments, citing the dangers of accidents at reactors or the pesky little problem of disposing of all that nuclear waste.

But there’s simply no denying that public opinion is becoming more favorable towards the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity. The argument is this: if you really want to get serious about global warming and eliminating carbon emissions, nuclear power needs to be among the alternatives to coal and oil. And so many major industrial countries are authorizing the construction of new nuclear plants.

A case in point is an article in today’s New York Times about the village of Flamanville, France and the direction the French government is heading with its energy program. Flamanville, located on the northwest coast of France, is the site of the country’s newest nuclear reactor, which is currently under construction. It’s the first new nuclear plant in 10 years in France.

But it won’t be the last. President Nicolas Sarkozy has already announced that France will build another plant like the one in Flamanville. The French see nuclear as a means to energy independence, particularly since they have little oil, coal or natural gas in the ground. Nuclear power provides 77 percent of the country’s energy, compared to 19.4 percent in the U.S.

If you’re a proponent of nuclear energy as an alternative in addressing the climate crisis, you point to France. According to the Times, each European Pressurized Reactor, the type being built in Flamanville, that replaces a coal plant means eliminating 11 million tons of carbon emissions that would otherwise be spewed into the atmosphere each year. Additionally, electrical power generation accounts for only 10 percent of France’s greenhouse gases, compared with an average of 40 percent in other industrialized countries.

Saying yes to nukes would be a big about-face for many socially responsible investors. Yet it will be interesting to watch the SRI community as the global warming crisis goes on. Will they believe that renewable energy sources can one day replace coal and oil or, ironically, will they decide that an investment in nuclear power is putting their money into positive action for the environment?