Poor countries paid to go nuclear - but should they go nuclear at all?

SHOOT: This is a tough question. But the choice is also tough - coal or nuclear? Because that is what it boils down to. On the face of it, coal is easier, but it is something we simply cannot afford to do to ourselves or the climate at this point. That would make nuclear the logical choice. The problem is, nuclear is fine as long as you can guarantee a certain minimal level of order. If you have a situation where the lights start flickering and there's social unrest, the consequences for nuclear plants could be pretty dire. I guess you have to ask yourself whether the cup is half full or half empty. I feel we'd need a concerted effort to get nuclear going, and failing that, we should prepare for a fairly widespread failure to provide food and energy for ourselves. The latter, unfortunately I feel, seems somewhat more likely.

clipped from www.newscientist.com "The whole world will benefit if we can encourage developing countries to meet their rapidly increasing energy needs through low-carbon technologies like nuclear energy, drawing on international support," says Jonathan Cobb, from the World Nuclear Association (WNA). New figures from the association reveal that the amount of nuclear electricity generated globally in 2008 was the lowest for five years because of a number of decommissions. The WNA is, however, expecting a "new wave of nuclear build" after 2012 Climate change experts are cautious. Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester and East Anglia universities in the UK, has "serious reservations" about the CDM. However, he thinks that nuclear power should be considered "provided safety and security issues are satisfactorily addressed". "But the promotion of nuclear power also brings with it a host of other environmental concerns," he says.