ON April 26, 1986, reactor No 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine exploded, causing 50 deaths, mass evacuations and a plume of radioactive fallout that reached as far as the UK and Ireland. It was the worst accident in the history of nuclear power and the industry has been living under its shadow ever since. Twenty-one years on, nuclear appears to be emerging from Chernobyl’s cloud, pushed back up the energy agenda by global warming and the turmoil in the Middle East.

Last week Britain took another step forward in what some are calling the “nuclear renaissance”.

Addressing the Confederation of British Industry’s annual conference, Gordon Brown, the prime minister, gave the clearest signs yet that Britain was preparing to fire up its nuclear-power programme once more.

Despite sometimes deafening criticism, Brown has pushed for new nuclear power plants. His plans were put on hold last year when environmental activists, including Greenpeace, forced a second consultation process on the government’s energy plans. The report is expected in the new year, but Brown’s own feelings are clear.

Last week he reconfirmed his position: “Long term, we have got to have a better planning system, and we need to deal with the question of how we can meet the sustainable energy needs of our country for the future,” Brown said.

Britain has a long history in nuclear power. The Queen opened the world’s first commercial-scale nuclear-power station, Calder Hall in Cumbria, in 1956. But like many countries, Britain’s nuclear-power industry has been mothballed over safety fears, concerns over nuclear-waste disposal and the high cost of building new plants.

Now, ironically, sky-high oil prices and green issues have thrust the Greenpeace bête noire back up the political agenda. Pro-nuclear France has a new plant under construction, Finland, a country with the greenest of credentials, is busy building another, Europe’s first in 15 years. In the United States, which hasn’t opened a new reactor for more than a decade, long-dormant proposals to build nuclear plants are being refreshed.

In California, pro-nuclear politicians felt emboldened enough to, unsuccessfully, challenge the state’s 30-year moratorium on nuclear energy. And in Europe, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Switzerland all have new nuclear agendas alongside Britain.

On the surface, nuclear energy has considerable attractions. Uranium, the fuel on which almost all nuclear energy is based, is found in a wide range of countries – unlike oil or natural gas. Supplies should last 200 years or more with technology being developed to prolong its use. Nor does nuclear produce large volumes of the greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, that are believed to be causing climate change.

And unlike wind, solar or tidal power, nuclear energy is not dependent on weather or the time of day in order to produce an output. According to the research house, New Energy Finance, once a nuclear power plant is running it can generate electricity 85%-95% of the time. Wind generators provide power for only 25%-30% of the time.

Nor are the financial costs of the two technologies radically different. New Energy Finance calculates it costs between $1.2m (£584,000) and $2.5m to finance each megawatt of electricity from a new nuclear plant. Wind generators cost between $1.5m and $2m per megawatt.

But the dark side of nuclear is very dark indeed. “After Chernobyl the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [the US nuclear watchdog] said there was a 50% chance of a major meltdown in the US. So far we have been lucky,” said Jim Riccio, Greenpeace nuclear analyst. “We’ve had 200 near misses in the US alone. That luck is going to run out,” he said. One of the problems stems from the fact that the industry is run by “pencil pushers looking to cut back on safety in order to better their margins”, said Riccio.

He added that, aside from accidents, terrorism made nuclear plants even more dangerous than they were in the last nuclear roll-out. “Do we really want to build more reactors when terrorists are already threatening the ones we have?”

Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others have pledged to campaign against the nuclear renaissance. But the industry seems to be emboldened by political support and the growing realisation that alternatives to fossil-fuel-powered electricity plants are needed now, and nuclear has a proven record of delivering. One of the green brigade’s strongest critics started his career in their own ranks.

Dr Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace, but after 15 years of campaigning against nuclear energy he had a Damascene conversion and now lobbies for the nuclear industry through Greenspirit, a Canadian-based consultancy.

Riccio said Moore was simply “flacking” for the nuclear industry, representing their interests – his firm is being sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an industry lobby group.

Moore said: “Greenpeace seems to find it necessary to stoop to attacking my person as if they are incapable of dealing with the facts, issues and ideas. We choose who we work for. We have an agenda to promote certain technologies and policies that we believe will contribute to sustain-ability. Greenspirit is using its relationship with NEI to communicate more effectively the need to use nuclear technology as a key component in the climate-change challenge. This furthers our agenda. No doubt the relationship is a symbiotic one, one of the most desirable ecological conditions as both parties benefit.”

Flack or not, Moore has influence. Last week he was in the Czech Republic spreading the nuclear gospel in a private meeting with president Vaclav Klaus. Moore argues that Europe provides a clear example of the benefits of nuclear technology.

“Germany has spent billions of euros subsidising wind and solar, marching to the greens’ drum. They have not succeeded in reducing their CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, which remain among the highest per capita in Europe [10.4 tonnes/capita/ year, up from 9.5 in 2,000. That is because wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable. Every solar panel and every wind machine must be backed up by reliable power for when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing,” he said.

Moore said Sweden had the lowest per capita CO2 emissions in Europe (6.3 tonnes/capita/year) and France had the second lowest (6.8 tonnes/ person/year). Sweden is 50% hydroelectric and 50% nuclear. France is 80% nuclear, 10% hydroelectric and uses only 10% fossil fuel. Denmark has the highest CO2 per capita at 11.0 tonnes/capita/year “because their mix is 18% wind and 82% fossil fuel. It is clear to see that the more hydroelectric and nuclear in the mix the lower the carbon emissions will be. Wind has a minor role to play and solar is not even worth the investment,” said Moore.

Greenpeace was “in denial”, he said. “There is a debate going on in Chile over nuclear or hydroelectric. The environmental movement is against both. I think they are being deliberately misleading when they argue wind and solar can do the job.”

If anyone is being misleading, it’s Moore, said Riccio. He described Moore’s arguments as “sophistry” and said that, quite apart from the safety aspects, the upfront costs of nuclear reactors meant they could not produce electricity at an affordable rate. “The first 75 reactors in the US cost $100 billion,” said Riccio. “It’s a very expensive way to boil water.”

Riccio said every dollar spent on energy efficiency and renewables was “seven to 10 times more efficient than a dollar spent on nuclear”.

What both sides will agree on is that alternatives to fossil fuels need to be found, and fast. In the meantime, the nuclear debate looks set to produce enough heat to light up cities on both sides of the Atlantic and boil a billion kettles. It’s a shame it can’t be channelled to the grid.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive