Centrica is a company that I generally admire. In its 15 years of existence it has pursued a dogged, ambitious and pretty successful gameplan, whilst remaining flexible enough to alter course from time to time when adverse winds have blown. They are pretty competent & professional; and I particularly like the (relatively) high level of openness & disclosure, though there has been the occasional lapse. Of course, they operate in a sector where it is easy to fall foul of public opinion periodically, and they get their share of opprobrium over gas & electricity prices. Every year or so, someone sets a rumour running that Gazprom is going to buy them up (which ain't gonna happen): but they have remained independent.
We've had occasion to analyse the evolution of their once extreme 'merchant energy' strategy, which became progressively more challenging post-Enron, and is now heavily modified by successive pragmatic moves in the direction of vertical integration. Clearly, their acquisition of 25% of British Energy was a step along that path, filling a fairly large short electricity position.
But a heavily nuke-oriented strategy ? Take a look at the chart - by 2020 they expect to have invested in at least a couple of new nukes with more building, and to be significantly reliant on their output (along with that of existing nukes) - far more so than industry average. Fellahs, is this wise ? Even your media outlet of choice, the comely Rowena Mason at the Telegraph, is wondering out loud whether the game is up.
Stick to gas guys, it's what you're good at. Plenty of time for another touch on the tiller before 2020. And the BE investment ? Sunk costs. Move on.