I. Before you read, answer the question:

• What are some of the arguments far and against using nuclear power?

II. Reading

Read this article and fulfill the tasks below.

NUCLEAR ENERGY: COME-BACK KID OR UGLY DUCKLING?

1 For environmentalists, it is thinking the unthinkable. Nuclear power, once the target of protests and demonstrations, has been transformed into the unexpected darling of some sections of the green lobby. The reason is simple: nuclear energy offers the hope of producing power on a large scale without burning fossil fuel. That would solve what many regard as the biggest threat the planet faces: global warming, caused by a dramatic rise in the level of carbon dioxide since industrialisation.

2 As people still want the benefits of industrialisation, and as developing nations pursue economic development - leading to predictions that our energy consumption and thus levels of atmospheric carbon could more than double - some experts depict the once-maligned nuclear industry as the best solution. The nuclear industry has itself assisted this transformation, through the development of new technologies designed to make nuclear power safer and to deal with long-term problems such as the disposal of waste.

3 But critics argue that the technology still suffers from problems. For instance, any nuclear reactor takes a long time to build and to produce energy. Safety concerns have also been heightened by the escalation in terrorist threats. Not only is there the possibility of a terrorist attack on a nuclear installation, but the creation of nuclear material for use in reactors and the waste generated provides terrorists with opportunities to steal valuable nuclear materials for use in nuclear bombs, or ‘dirty’ bombs.

4 Another question is whether nuclear energy would be economically viable. The upfront costs are discouragingly high at an estimated $1,300 to $1,500 per kilowatt to build a nuclear plant, which works out as roughly twice what it costs to build a gas-fired power station. However, proponents claim that over the life of a nuclear plant, it can generate energy at a cost comparable to or even cheaper than that of conventional fossil-fuel power.

5 Detractors counter that the industry has been subsidised by the public purse in so many ways, from research and development to clear-up operations, that the energy is much more expensive than the sector admits. For all these reasons, though, some green lobbyists support a nuclear future, most remain opposed. They argue that alternatives, from better energy conservation and natural sources such as wind, to technologies such an hydrogen fuel cells, are more realistic and less risky.

6 Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, believes there may be a role for nuclear energy, but only when certain conditions have been met. ‘You have to make sure you have enough safeguards and that you don’t have nuclear proliferation’. Some governments also remain opposed to the idea. Sweden recently confirmed plans to shut down one of its 11 nuclear reactors, to reduce its dependence on nuclear power.

7 By contrast, Sweden's neighbour Finland has heartily embraced nuclear power. The Finnish parliament recently ratified a decision to build a final spent-nuclear-fuel storage facility and approved a new nuclear reactor. France generates three-quarters of its energy from nuclear sources, and President Barack Obama has indicated his support for new nuclear reactors in the US.

8 Perhaps the most important government in the debate is China, whoso appetite for energy requires sweeping solutions. It plans to build as many as 30 nuclear plants, and to generate as much as 300 gigawatts from nuclear means by 2050. This has made other governments nervous. The development of a problem-free alternative, nuclear fusion, is as far as 50 years away. Long before then, governments and the public will have to decide what part they want nuclear power to play in energy production.