Several noteworthy news analyses published over the last several weeks underscore the salient observation in my article that, while the debate over nuclear energy in the United States continues, a number of other nations—including those that either have previously foresworn nuclear power or have never pursued it—are taking realistic steps toward building reactors in order to provide for their own energy independence.

Vincent Boland in the Financial Times explains how the Italians, who rejected nuclear energy by referendum in 1987, one year after the Chernobyl accident, have now reversed that law and are partnering up with the French to study the construction of new nuclear power plants in Sicily and in the northeast near Venice. The Italian rationale is simple: They are growing restless about the dangers of Europe’s excessive reliance on Russian gas supplies.

Leslie Allen’s Washington Post Magazine article on the emergence of thorium as an alternative to uranium as nuclear fuel highlights the phenomenon of increasing numbers of states going nuclear—even petroleum-rich states like the United Arab Emirates. In Abu Dhabi’s case, while they have plenty of oil for export, they will soon be starving for natural gas, and they see the prospect of importing coal as dirty and wind power as unreliable.

Juxtapose these international developments against Mark Clayton’s analysis of ongoing domestic arguments in the U.S., “Nuclear Power’s New Debate: Cost” (The Christian Science Monitor, August 9, 2009, pp. 33-35). Clayton’s piece shows how anti-nuclear groups are beginning to shift emphasis away from their emotionally charged “China Syndrome” arguments of the past and are now sharpening their talking points, criticizing the financial risks of nuclear power and Federal government guarantees being proposed in Congress.

While I agree that the nuclear energy industry’s record at controlling costs remains its principal Achilles’ heel, it’s time to have a honest debate comparing start-up and operating costs, current and proposed government subsidies, and electricity generating capacity for all potential sources of energy—including solar, wind, gas and biofuels. If this truly fair debate were ever to occur, we might be surprised to learn that nuclear energy has acquitted itself fairly well.