Yet for all the subsidies poured into development of alternative renewable energy sources, the European Commission has clearly concluded that nuclear power offers the only serious and clean energy solution to its fast-approaching energy crisis, a solution unthinkable just a few years ago. E.U. leaders know that time is running out.

But the E.U. leadership finds itself between a rock (uranium) and a hard place (convincing a post-Chernobyl, skeptical Europe to trust using it). Split by two powerful opposing factions, Europe’s political impasse may be broken in the time-honored E.U. tradition: national self-interest, which may come through a chain reaction recently begun when the U.K. announced policies that will likely result in new nuclear plants in the British Isles.

The European region is the world’s biggest nuclear energy generator, with about 160 reactors providing about one-third of its electricity needs. France leads the way, with almost 79 percent. Almost half of Sweden’s electricity production depends on nuclear power. In the U.K. nuclear power provides about 20 percent of the country’s electricity needs, and in The Netherlands it is around 9 percent.

It could all have been so different. Fallout that spewed across much of northern Europe after the 1986 Chernobyl reactor meltdown led many governments to turn their backs on nuclear. Germany, Spain, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, and Belgium have been anti-nuclear for two decades. Germany, Europe’s most populous state and the E.U.’s largest budget contributor, is still committed to taking all of its nuclear reactors offline by 2020. France, the U.K., the Czech Republic, Poland, and a handful of eastern European states are strongly pro-nuclear. As for Europe’s citizens, if the European Commission’s own polls are to be believed, they remain strongly suspicious of nuclear power. A mere 20 percent support its use.

Never an organization to be unduly concerned with democratic opinion, the European Commissioners have now decided to turn the anti-nuclear public relations tide. Dropping any pretense of what was formerly an agnostic stance on nuclear energy, the E.U. set up the European Nuclear Energy Forum (E.N.E.F.) in 2007 to provide a forum for public debate. In truth, E.N.E.F. is more of a high-profile lobby for nuclear energy. The E.N.E.F. most recently met in May 2008, its second meeting. Members know they have their work cut out with 80 percent of the population to win over.

But recent developments are helping to inform the debate. In January 2008 Britain gave the go-ahead to replace its aging atomic infrastructure with 14 new-generation nuclear plants. France has started work on a new-generation European Pressurized Reactor. Sweden, which in 1999 committed to phasing out all 12 of its nuclear power stations within 30 years, is re-thinking its nuclear stance in light of national polls showing almost half of its citizens want the old reactors replaced. Lithuania is teaming up with Poland, Latvia, and Estonia to build a new reactor, and Slovakia and Bulgaria are working together to replace their old Soviet-built reactors.

Perhaps the biggest shock came with the recent defection of formerly anti-nuclear Italy to the pro-nuclear camp. The move came some 20 years after the nation voted overwhelmingly for a national ban and the deactivation of existing reactors. In May, Italy’s new center-right government announced plans to resume building nuclear energy plants within five years. Giuseppe Onufrio, director of Greenpeace Italy, declared the plan “a declaration of war.” The national response was more muted; it seems Italians have grown weary of the highest electricity prices in Europe.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel also wants to reverse the planned phase-out of the 17 nuclear plants that supply 28 percent of her country’s electricity needs. But Merkel’s hands are tied, since maintaining the phase-out was a condition of the deal she cut to head Germany’s Grand Coalition Government. However, according to polls, around half of the German population now wants the phase-out decision reviewed.

The sheltered reactor No. 4 of
the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
seen in Ukraine

In 2006, fears of being overly dependent on foreign (especially Russian) oil and gas became reality. European politicians looked on aghast as Vladimir Putin cut Ukraine’s natural gas supply. Almost immediately thereafter, Europe’s energy roadmap became dominated by a single concept: diversity. Russia may have lost one empire but she was clearly determined to gain another, one based on exploiting her energy riches. But other factors were changing the economic landscape. When the Chernobyl disaster struck, oil was cheap. And carbon fundamentalism with its high associated costs had yet to be invented. According to Ian Hore-Lacey, spokesman for the London-based World Nuclear Association, “Italy has had the most dramatic, the most public turnaround, but the sentiments against nuclear are reversing very quickly all across Europe.” In response to which nations were suggesting they may soon join Britain and France as major producers, he replied, “Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, and more.”

E.U. citizens today plainly remain nervous after Chernobyl (it was on Europe’s doorstep, after all) and Three Mile Island. But there is recognition that concerns about atomic energy mishaps have been exaggerated and that modern reactors have prodigious safeguards. Nuclear power has such promise as a clean and efficient energy provider that politicians like Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek are prepared to tackle “ideologically motivated” environmental lobbies, describing the bogey of nuclear waste treatment as a “pseudo-problem” of a “political, not technical, nature.” As a result, senior European politicians have taken a less equivocal position. “We need nuclear energy as part of the energy mix,” Hans-Gert Poettering, the European Parliament president, recently said before an audience honoring environmentally friendly projects. Andris Piebalgs, European Energy Commissioner, now openly states his support for a nuclear strategy to combat climate change. And Jose Manuel Barroso, European Commission president, has been criticized for backing an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for a bigger nuclear role in developing countries.

Europe’s U-turn on nuclear power is also an admission of the failure of renewables to take up Europe’s energy slack. Europe has been a trailblazer for expensive wind, solar, biofuel, and hydro projects. It has poured massive subsidies into all sorts of projects that have ultimately delivered a poor investment/return ratio. The food-versus-fuel debate has pretty much deflated the biofuels bubble. Northern Europe has proven to be inauspicious ground for solar projects. The Scottish Parliament refused permission for the massive Isle of Lewis wind farm project, in the face of public opposition. The large tracts of land required by onshore wind farms have led to similar opposition in other parts of Europe. And offshore wind farms present greater problems, with even more prohibitive building and maintenance costs. Shell recently pulled out of the London Array, the world’s largest offshore project (in the Thames estuary), calling into question its viability. Yet the E.U. considers wind power its best alternative energy hope.

So, what’s next? On July 1, nuclear-powered France assumed the E.U. presidency, and President Sarkozy is determined to put energy issues at the top of its agenda. Since Paris is already Europe’s nuclear capital, this might be seen as a magnanimous gesture to help others less able to stave off the economic effects of the coming energy crisis. But this is France. Back in March after the U.K. pressed its own nuclear development aspirations, France and the U.K. hatched a joint, potentially highly lucrative plan to construct a new generation of nuclear power stations – and export the technology around the world in an effort to cut carbon dioxide emissions. The truth is the energy world sees nuclear infrastructure development as a good business. It seems France and Britain will not wait around for the E.U. to set the nuclear bandwagon in motion. They are already rolling, with future lucrative deals in mind.

While the debate is clearly settled for France and Britain, the E.U. leadership is still bogged down, trying to win the public debate. The E.U. lacks the federal power to force its members along the atomic path. But if it really believes nuclear is the only realistic proposition to avoid the looming energy crisis (and what is the alternative?), then E.U. leaders must more forcefully set out the stark energy realities. It should also be noted that Europe, like America, sits on vast quantities of cheap coal – coal that could be used to fire up a new generation of power plants.

Czech prime minister Mirek Topolanek recently warned the second E.N.E.F. meeting, “We must do more than talk about nuclear energy. It is really five minutes to midnight.” For Europe, the clock is ticking.