Further complicating the debate is Europe’s anxiety over its reliance on Russian natural gas. Gazprom’s recent decision to raise the price of gas to Ukraine – and at least temporarily cut its shipments of gas to the West – has many countries worried. They don’t want to depend on Russian gas, but they don’t want to build more nuclear plants. They love renewable energy, but renewables can’t meet the demand. So what’s the answer?

First, a look back. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident kicked off much of today’s fear of nuclear. While no one deaths were attributed directly to Three Mile Island, the event was the most serious nuclear accident in U.S. history. Seven years later, Ukraine’s Chernobyl explosion rocked the industry. That accident killed more than two dozen, forced the evacuation of surrounding towns, and left much of Eastern Europe awash in nuclear debris and radiation.

Twenty years later, Chernobyl still haunts the region. Despite the havoc created by the accident, nuclear power is becoming irresistible to some European countries. Proof of that can be found in what may be the most unlikely place: Ukraine. According to the World Nuclear Association, the country now has 15 reactors, with plans to build two new ones and up to 11 more by 2030.

Finland is building its fifth nuclear power plant, which is expected to begin operation in 2009. It will be the first new nuclear plant built in Western Europe since 1991. The Finnish parliament voted to approve the reactor back in 2002 because of growing concern about its dependence on imported fuel from – where else? – Russia.

Overall, nuclear power provides about 34 percent of Europe’s electricity. But that doesn’t appear to matter to Germany, which has the worst case of nuclear jitters. By 2020, Germany plans to have shut down all of its 17 reactors. The solution, according to Germany’s Green Party and Social Democrats: renewable energy. But there’s a problem with that idea: solar panels aren’t that efficient in cloudy locales like Berlin and Hamburg. The new coalition government, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, is issuing conflicting reports. Merkel’s Christian Democrats want a review of the law that would shut down about one-third of the country’s nuclear plants by 2009. Her party wants to keep the nuclear plants and use more coal even though Germany was among the first signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile, the Social Democrats insist the shutdown should stay on schedule and that wind and solar power are the only options.

The Brits are similarly conflicted. In late January, Prime Minister Tony Blair launched an energy review (the results are due in April) to examine Britain’s nuclear sector. Blair’s government is considering a new generation of reactors to replace its aging fleet of nuclear plants, which now provide 30 percent of the country’s electricity. But mixed messages abound. Britain’s trade secretary, Alan Johnson, originally spoke out in opposition to Blair, saying Britain’s planned phase-out of nuclear power (which would close all U.K. stations by 2023) will continue. Now, though, Johnson may be changing his tune: his recent press statements imply that nuclear energy is the only solution to the potential loss of almost one-third of the country’s electricity generation capacity. Declining gas production in the North Sea means that Britain must rely on imported gas to fuel its power stations.

Scotland and Italy are also confounded. One member of the Scottish parliament recently said, “Nuclear energy is off the agenda for the foreseeable future.” Another said that Blair’s government should be aware that if it intends to build a nuclear power plant in Scotland, it “will be faced with massive opposition.” And in 1987, Italians voted to close their nuclear power plants. That forced the country to import much of its electric power from France – never mind that nuclear plants generate almost 80 percent of France’s power. Predictably, today Italy’s electricity costs are the highest in Europe. Last year, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Italy should reconsider its opposition to nuclear both because of the high prices and the need to comply with Kyoto.

The major barrier to China’s nuclear ambitions is waste – namely, what to do with it. According to news sources, Beijing has no real plan for how to deal with spent uranium, and the World Nuclear Association estimates that China’s nuclear waste could reach 3,800 tons by 2010.

The nuclear waste problem is not stopping the U.S. from forging ahead. (The travails of Nevada’s Yucca Mountain waste disposal site, and the great fuel reprocessing debate, are different stories altogether). About 100 nuclear reactors now supply some 20 percent of America’s electricity. And that number is likely to grow in the coming years thanks to new government incentives. The energy bill President George W. Bush signed in August catalyzed the industry, with provisions for risk insurance, production tax credits, and loan guarantees. The legislation doled out billions to an industry that has been working quietly since it went out of favor in the early 80s.

“The overriding sentiment right now, if you look across the board globally, is that nuclear is back,” says Peter Wells, the marketing manager of GE Energy’s nuclear business. “The leaders of countries, an increasing number of them, are saying we’ve got it wrong – that nuclear has to be part of the answer and solution.”

The global love-hate relationship with nuclear power will likely continue for some time to come. Concerns about waste disposal, proliferation and accidents will always hamper the industry. Nevertheless, the nuclear power sector is gaining momentum. The new, safer, cheaper reactor designs, combined with growing global demand for electricity, indicate that a nuclear renaissance is imminent.