The UK government yesterday announced that it is inviting proposals for building a new generation of nuclear power stations in England and Wales. After many years in which nuclear power has been seen as The Big Bad Wolf, this is quite a turnaround for the government... and especially for some individuals in government, who were active anti-nuclear protestors in their youth. So, why the change? Well, a big part of the answer is carbon dioxide (CO₂).

---

CO₂, of course, is the chief suspect implicated in Global Warming. It is one of the dreaded Greenhouse Gases. CO₂ is what's caused many of us to start worrying about our Carbon Footprints. And this is what has brought the smile back to the face of The Big Bad Wolf: he has very dainty feet! The carbon footprint of nuclear power is the same as that of wind power, and much lower than photovoltaic solar panels.

Electricity generation in France causes low CO₂ emissions because 88% is generated by nuclear stations (and most of the rest comes from hydro power). The UK decision to restart the construction of nuclear power stations follows a recent trend in the US towards nuclear power after shying away from it for many years. Both the UK and the US currently generate 20% of their electricity in nuclear facilities, many of which are old and due to be retired in the not too distant future.

Experts told us for many years that the risks associated with nuclear power were very small. But our confidence in nuclear power did not reflect the expert view. Public opinion was heavily influenced by the disaster at Chernobyl in 1986, when Reactor No.4 exploded and released radioactive material into the environment. But this incident was not typical of the nuclear industry. It was one of the most unstable reactor designs in operation in the Soviet Union. Staff with inadequate training were attempting to carry out an experiment with improper procedures. The result was the worst accident in the history of nuclear power.

Experts now tell us that we are in danger of destroying the environment by generating too much carbon dioxide. We must take urgent steps to reduce our CO₂ emissions. I find it interesting that people are so ready to believe this expert opinion when they were so reluctant to believe the low risk of nuclear power. Could this be a trend towards trusting in expert opinion? Probably not! More likely, it is a confirmation of the general mood of pessimism, fearing the worst.

Except for the French! They do things differently. They are not afraid of Le Grand Méchant Loup. The French have a proper respect for their engineers! (In the UK, the term engineer is used to refer to the person who comes to repair the washing machine!) The French share my admiration and enthusiasm for great engineering achievements. The rail speed record is held by the French TGV. The highest road bridge in the world crosses the River Tarn at Millau in France. The largest passenger airliner in the world is made at Toulouse in France. And the most powerful nuclear reactor is French. Two of them are currently being built, one at Flammanville in France and the other at Olkiluoto in Finland. (Well, the Finns just love new technology!)

Personally, I support the use of renewable energy sources wherever possible, especially if it involves great engineering! My wife and I had a house built a couple of years ago. We added more insulation than the regulations required. We installed a tank and other equipment to allow the use of rainwater for things like flushing toilets and watering the garden. On the roof, we installed photovoltaic solar panels to generate electricity that could be used directly by the occupants or sold to the electricity supply company. In the first year of use, our solar panels generated nearly 2MWh of electricity. That's pretty impressive but still very small on the grand scale of things. One of the new French reactors will produce 7 million times as much in one year! It would be difficult to imagine scaling up our domestic installation to 7 million homes. Even if it were possible, the financial cost (and the carbon footprint) would be far greater than for one nuclear power station!