………(The IAEA) acknowledges that the outlook is “highly uncertain”. The Chernobyl disaster of 1986, now being vividly recreated in a television drama series from HBO, put a brake on investment in new reactors in western countries for two decades, and then just as there was talk of a “nuclear renaissance” emerging in the 21st century, the Fukushima disaster of 2011 dealt another blow to public confidence. The IEA argues that the most important reason for the collapse of investor appetite for new nuclear plants in Europe and the US, however, has been the industry’s failure to deliver projects on time and on budget. At a time when the costs of renewable energy have been plunging, the cost of nuclear power has been soaring. The estimated cost of the EPR reactor that French utility EDF is building at Flamanville in Normandy, for example, has soared from €3bn to €11bn. François de Rugy, France’s environment minister, said this week that the start date for the reactor was still uncertain. Such stories are the rule rather than the exception for new nuclear plants built in Europe and the US over the past 15 years.

As a result, investing in new nuclear plants is very difficult for the private sector. Of 54 under construction worldwide today, 47 are being built by state-owned companies, and six of the seven in the private sector have price regulation in place to give them some certainty about their revenues. But beyond that, even keeping existing plants running is becoming increasingly difficult  …..

The IEA suggests a range of policy measures for supporting nuclear power, including operating lifetime extensions from regulators, electricity market designs that reward nuclear plants for their advantages including high levels of availability, and payments that put nuclear on an even footing with renewable sources as low-carbon power. In practice, the blunt realities of energy politics have meant that moves to help nuclear power have not always played out in the best possible ways for curbing emissions. In the US, New York, Illinois and most recently New Jersey have put measures in place to support their nuclear plants. A similar plan is being debated in Pennsylvania, and although it has come too late for Three Mile Island, it could save the state’s other nuclear plants.

There have been vigorous arguments over all of these initiatives, but the most controversial of all has been the plan now moving through the legislature in Ohio, which links support for nuclear power to help for coal-fired plants and an attack on policies favouring renewables and energy efficiency. The state’s House of Representatives this week approved a bill that would create new payments for Ohio’s two nuclear plants, while cutting support for energy efficiency and scrapping the state’s mandated standard requiring 12.5 per cent of its generation to come from renewable sources by 2027. The legislation now goes to the state’s Senate. The plan has won bipartisan support, but it has been a particularly critical issue for Ohio’s Republicans.

 A senior adviser to President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign has been urging state lawmakers to back the plan, because of the thousands of jobs that would be lost if the nuclear plants closed. “The message is that if we have these plants shut down we can’t get Trump re-elected,” a source told Politico.

In another example of how the changing energy landscape of the US has shaken up old enmities and alliances, the campaign against the bill has united environmentalists and the oil and gas industry. Neil Waggoner of the Sierra Club, the environmental group, described the legislation as “a farce” and “an absolute embarrassment for Ohio”. The American Petroleum Industry warned that customers would “pay the price” for the bill, and urged the state Senate to “protect Ohio taxpayers and reject this legislative bailout”.