Informative special report about the nuclear-power renaissance sweeping the globe. This well-researched package of articles covers this worldwide trend, with stories on the U.S., Asia and safety, as well as investment opportunities. A great overview of this once-reviled energy source.

A story that purports to help people decide if nuclear power would be a good idea would have to cover at least safety, environment impact, cost, and fuel supplies. The most visible stories in this collection concentrate on safety and somehow turn the rising cost of uranium into a plus. But cost and environmental impact are best addressed in the smaller print "Nuclear energy's green credentials" story. So while this seems to have much of the story, it isn't all that balanced.

Market Watch has its own quality of journalism standard, and in that scale, I'm unable to say they're practicing bad journalism. Of all carbon-free energy sources, nuclear power is the only one that's already working on a large scale, esp. in America, so far I know. So, it's already an option, though may not be preferred by all or many. I'm however with this view that it's also the one that scares people out the most. memories of Chernobyl, fears of terrorists or rogue states getting nuclear material, and unease over waste that stays radioactive for thousands of years all mean that before nuclear power can be expanded on an order needed to meet greenhouse-gas-reduction targets.

Some of the reviewers are downgrading this story because they don't agree that nuclear should be an option. But as a piece of journalism this does a good job of giving an overview of the industry and its challenges.

Marketwatch makes this investment opportunity look as good as collateralized debt obligations. It sounds as safe as deep water oil drilling. What does standard and poor say about nukes? This sounds like industry BS being put out to the public to go along with their political contributions that have convinced politicians to socialize the risk while privatizing the profits.

Well, building nuke plants is very profitable, but let's look how interested Wall Street is in operating nuke plants. They aren't. No waste disposal site is even on the drawing board and the US is already non-compliant on it's promise to take spent fuel. Maine has no power from nukes but spends a fortune storing spent feul from an old plant that closed. No one wants to own a nuke plant. No one wants to live next to one. The expense of a nuke plant is 10 times the expense of wind or solar thermal plants on a per megawatt basis. Are you going to invest in owning one?

THere is NO story, and therefore NO journalism. This piece by Market Watch is written by the industry financial insiders who want to push the idea of nuclear energy so that they can make money off of trading nuclear energy stocks. For instance: Do you favor the expanded use of nuclear power to meet the world's growing energy needs? This is a push poll designed to make people come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is necessary. "Do you favor the expanded use of nuclear power?", would have been a much more honest question without the loaded expected response. Besides the pablum & graphics there is no story or insightful information. Poor.

This article ignores concerns about storage altogether, and is biased toward the industry's language and selling points. The only dissenter is a Greenpeace activist - clearly far left of the mainstream and outnumbered by positive views. Since this is published for people who are investors, I'm not at all surprised. Market Watch probably gave a lot of kudos to BP a few months ago as well.