'Nuclear Power? Yes please ...' was one of the headlines on the homepage of The Independent this morning. If you read on you learned that four of the UK's leading environmentalists were urging Britain to embrace nuclear power "because of the urgent need to curb emissions of carbon dioxide."

Nuclear energy is dangerous and expensive. There is definitely urgency involved in reducing carbon emissions, but it is way too late for nuclear to be encouraged as a solution to meeting the UK's - or anyone else's - CO2 reduction targets.

This presentation of nuclear energy as coal's 'slightly-less-evil twin' can join 'clean coal' as dirty energy myth number two. Or number 100. Not quite sure where we are in the count ...

The four environmentalists currently embracing nuclear have all been anti-nuclear in the past, as mentioned in the article. The odd thing about this, beyond the flip-flopping, is that the article seems to present their former position on nuclear energy as backing up their current position. As if the fact that they used to think it was a crap idea means that if they think it's great now - it must be really, really great!

Nuclear energy is already heading towards extinction - investing billions of dollars in resurrecting it is about as useful to our planet as that scientist in Japan who is trying to clone the woolly mammoth. While I'm not sure what his time could be better spent on, we already know where our energy efforts will be better spent and have to be spent. It's the choice between going forwards - Energy [R]evolution - or backwards.

[Read The Independent article 'Nuclear Power? Yes please ...']

no%20nuke%20in%20france.jpg