Europe Is Losing Nuclear Power Just When It Needs Energy
From my aged perspective, this is reaping the "green benefit" from the 70s and 80s, when there were world wide activists campaigning against nuclear power for "reasons" (largely the Cold War).  If you think green activists are something new, it's because you're "young".We're reaping what we sowed back then:  the "brainwashing" of the public that unquestioningly accept that nuclear power is 'bad' and tightly linked to nuclear weapons and death.Despite the fact that nuclear power stations do not have to produce "weapons grade" plutonium/whatever and, I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face, has been responsible for smallest number of deaths of any form of energy generation and produce the lowest amount of CO2 (i.e. zero, other than construction).  It's entirely likely more people die in a day world wide from fossil fuel pollution and production than have ever died from nuclear accidents.> The trouble, as ever, is time. “Any investment decisions you make now aren’t going to come to fruition until the 2030s,” said Osbaldstone, the research director at Wood Mackenzie. “Nuclear isn’t an answer to the current energy crisis.”As the saying goes "the best time to build X was yesterday".Careful what you wish for.  The millions of tons of CO2 we could have avoided emitting in Europe...> “Nuclear isn’t an answer to the current energy crisis.”Sorry, but to use an old quote, nuclear is the worst solution to the current energy crisis, apart from all the others.