Nuclear power: a clean solution or a cul-de-sac?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Far from being a guarantee of a greener future, the revival of nuclear power would be a costly cul-de-sac. Au contraire, nuclear energy can be cheap, clean, abundant and secure. Europe will never meet its carbon emissions targets by wind and solar power alone.
Two visions of the nuclear future – a sceptical British view and the enthusiastic official French view – collided head on at yesterday's Lyon environmental conference.
Tom Burke, a former head of Friends of the Earth and a leading anti-nuclear campaigner, took his nuclear scepticism into the most pro-nuclear, and nuclear-dependent, country in Europe. He was opposed by France's "Monsieur Nucléaire", François Roussely, former president of Electricité de France (EDF) and the man charged by President Nicolas Sarkozy with charting France's nuclear future.
Mr Burke, a regular adviser to British energy ministers and the Foreign Office, said his anti-nuclear arguments went beyond fear of radioactive leaks or the proliferation of nuclear arms, or worries about waste. A nuclear revival would soak up the "capital and skills" which would be better invested in "more reliable and less costly low-carbon energy technologies".
Mr Roussely said there were three arguments for nuclear power. It was clean, cheap and more secure, geo-politically, than oil or gas.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments