It's gonna hurt, reports the Guardian:
The International Energy Agency has warned that the world faces higher energy costs, more carbon emissions and greater supply uncertainty if it turns its back on nuclear. Nobuo Tanaka, the executive director, signalled the organisation was likely to cut its estimates of atomic power when it finalises its latest World Energy Outlook this year. The IEA previously believed nuclear would generate 14% of all electricity by 2035 but this figure is under revision in the light of Germany and Japanabandoning the sector following the Fukushima crisis. This week, in a referendum, Italy also voted overwhelmingly "“ and against the advice of Silvio Berlusconi's government "“ to reject any return to nuclear power. "If nuclear is not 14% but say 10% then it means more gas and more coal as well as more renewables", said Tanaka. "It will cost much more, be less sustainable and there will be less security. These are the consequences of lower nuclear," he said at a World of Energy prize giving on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.
In the UK, George Monbiot and Mark Lynas have stepped into the fray on the nuclear issue. In the U.S., there is conspicuous silence from the climate change-concerned community on the implications of the nuclear backlash. Why, when so many of them know better? I'd say they are either being cowardly or are in denial.
