There is a thoughtful article in the 6 January 2006 edition of the Christian Science Monitor titled Europe warms to nuclear power.
The author, Mr. Peter Ford, reports on the changing perceptions and plans regarding nuclear power in a number of different European countries including Switzerland, the UK, Germany, Finland, Bulgaria, and even Italy. He quotes a number of influential leaders from organizations including the European Commission, the International Energy Agency, the World Nuclear Association, the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, and Greenpeace.
Definitely an article worth reading.
However, while Mr. Ford carefully identifies the World Nuclear Association as “an industry lobbying group”, he fails to make any connection between anti-nuclear activities and the fact that when nuclear power replaces coal, oil, gas, and/or windmills, a powerful group of people loses a lot of money. When nuclear power plants are shut down as a result of political pressure and not technical limitations, that same group makes a lot of money by providing replacement energy.
There is economic motivation on both sides of this debate; that fact should never be lost.
It should be abundantly clear, however, that a technology that is clean enough to run inside submarines should at least be carefully evaluated. People that reject nuclear energy without realistically comparing it to all other available energy sources are either blind, economically motivated or dogmatic in their belief system.