A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

I've long been an advocate of increasing the use of nuclear power and energy in the United States as part of the solution to any energy crisis that we may face. I am well aware that it is not a cure-all solution and that it is not without its own attendant set of complications, but the fearmongering and NIMBYing that accompanies any debate over nuclear energy does little to detract from the merits of the option.

Comes now the chief scientific advisor to the Blair government to argue the same for Britain: 

The government's chief scientific adviser has sent his clearest signal that Britain will need to revive its nuclear power industry in the face of a looming energy crisis and the threat of global warming. In an interview with the Guardian, Sir David King said there were economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors.

He said nuclear power had "the safest record of all the power industries in the world". Professor King, who has previously said more nuclear power stations "may be necessary" to meet carbon dioxide emission targets, said the decline of North Sea oil and gas could tip the balance. "We need indigenous energy sources so we don't rely on imported gas from Russia. We're the last in the pipeline across Europe, so a second requirement is that we have a secure energy supply. Indigenous supplies include all renewables and nuclear."

Relying on renewable sources including wind, solar and wave power to replace lost capacity when existing nuclear power stations close would be a "remarkably tough challenge," he said. "At the moment 24% of energy on the grid comes from nuclear power; by 2020 that will be down to 4%. That gap of 20% is going to be very difficult to cover over the period 2010 to 2020 without new nuclear build."

More power stations burning coal and gas would give Britain little chance of meeting ambitious targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming. Generating electricity using the heat of nuclear reactors to turn water into steam to drive turbines does not produce carbon dioxide directly, though building and dismantling the plants and mining uranium fuel all do.

Prof King, one of Tony Blair's most trusted advisers, said the public debate on nuclear power needed to focus on the environmental benefits. "It's important we do take the public with us on the environmental debate. That is why I'm trying to sell it - it's precisely because of the emissions."

He added that the possible introduction of carbon taxes would make nuclear power a cheaper option than coal. "People are concerned about nuclear energy in terms of its expense, but if we had just €23 [£15.50p] per tonne on carbon dioxide then you already switch the economic argument in favour of nuclear."

Here is hoping that the good Professor is successful in his proselytization campaign. And here is hoping that we follow the example Professor King would have the Mother Country set. Incidentally, it should be noted (again) that France relies on nuclear power for over 70% of its energy needs, and does not suffer from any of the problems that the NIMBYists regularly decry and warn about.

(Thanks to Slashdot for the link.)