Even if further serious consequences are averted, Fukushima has already joined Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as once-obscure places whose names the opponents of nuclear energy can invoke to great effect. The public’s visceral reaction to the terrifying images from Japan will overwhelm nuances such as redundant reactor technology, modern safety mechanisms or the geological stability of plant locations, nipping a nascent industry renaissance in the bud. Nuclear is once again a dirty word.
In the US, tens of billions in loan guarantees as well as the first wave of new plant licences since Three Mile Island in 1979 are in jeopardy. In Europe, Germany’s reversal of plans to phase out nuclear plants in a decade face new criticism. And in Asia, India’s plans to ease power shortages through a big expansion of nuclear generation are being questioned. The only country sending a clear signal about sticking to development goals is China, with nearly half the world’s 155 planned reactors. In democracies though, Nimbyism, a potent phenomenon at the best of times, has been fortified.
Companies most directly affected are uranium miners and processors such as Camecoand USEC, and reactor-builders Areva, Toshibaand General Electric. Secondary effects will harm, and in some cases help, other industries. In the US, utilities such as Entergyand Southern Company, in the middle of relicensing or developing multiple reactors, appear vulnerable, while thermal coal producers Arch Coal and Peabody Energy could benefit. Meanwhile, big liquefied natural gas producers such as Shelland Chevronwill see both short- and long-term demand increase. Developers of other zero-emission power sources may also benefit, though they can replace only a fraction of nuclear’s potential.