Nuclear power in Europe

The notion that we need nuclear power to address climate change does not reflect the realities of the marketplace or rapid new developments in energy technology.

It is now generally understood that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning are at the centre of the climate crisis. In the electricity sector, that primarily means the burning of coal. China and the United States are the leading users, and Russia, Germany and India also use coal as a mainstay of power generation. Long-term assured carbon sequestration is not yet a proven technology, and it is unclear when it might become available on the required scale. In environmental terms, the world cannot afford new coal-fired power plants; indeed, even existing coal-fired power plants may have to be phased out before 2050. The nuclear-power industry, proclaiming a 'nuclear renaissance', has suggested itself as a saviour with a simple formula: if you don't like coal, build nuclear plants.

The government is pinning its hopes on a nuclear renaissance to meet Britain's climate change goals. Planning procedures are being eased and hidden subsidies offered. But the policy is based on a misunderstanding of nuclear power's lousy economics, and will fail
Tom Burke

Climate change and the oil crisis are being used to project atomic energy as a green panacea. In fact it is a reckless gamble

The Italian government, whose public debt of €1.624 trillion is already the world's third largest, seems eager to dig deeper. Last week, recently re-elected Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi made good on his campaign pledge to recommit Italy to nuclear power. This seemed just the thing to address the country's rising oil and gas prices and growing French electricity imports -- except for one thing: Mr. Berlusconi's promised nuclear power plants are unlikely to ever be built.