The argument since 2004 was that with oil prices rising to record highs, industrialised countries would turn back to nuclear power as a cheaper source of energy. Uranium, the fuel of the nuclear industry, prices reacted to that argument, surging since 2004 to reach in June a record high of $136 a pound.

But the close relationship between crude oil and uranium prices fell apart during the summer and recently prices had moved in completely opposite ways. This week, crude oil prices surged to an all-time high of $84.10 a barrel while uranium prices fell their lowest level since March of $85 a pound.

Despite the price drop, uranium is trading well above its $10 a pound historical average. Indeed, uranium prices are today a 700 per cent higher than in January 2003, while crude oil prices are just a 150 per cent higher. And most Wall Street banks are still bullish.

Europe encompasses the whole spectrum of opinions when it comes to nuclear power. This is well illustrated by the row between anti-nuclear groups in Austria, where opposition to atomic energy is enshrined in law, and champions of nuclear power in the neighbouring Czech Republic. According to the Prague Post,  Czech nuclear enthusiasts have set up the Start Zwentendorf advocacy group to counter (and satirise) the efforts of the Stop Temelín anti-nuclear pressure group in Austria. Zwentendorf, Austria’s only nuclear plant, was built in 1978 but has never been used to generate power as a public referendum that year decided not to launch the reactor and to rule out further nuclear development. Temelín, meanwhile, is the Czech Republic’s biggest nuclear power plant and has become the focus of protests by Austrian anti-nuclear activists, including border-crossing blockades.

In his last significant policy move as prime minister before he steps down in June, Tony Blair’s government has set out its energy strategy for the UK. There is a whole lot of stuff in the announcement: the main paper alone is 341 pages, and there are 25 supporting studies. The UK’s obsession, shared with other EU governments, for trying to combat climate change with a barrage of initiatives, is neatly skewered by this FT editoral.

All anyone really seems to care about, though, is that the UK has moved a step closer to building new nuclear power stations. There is praise for the government from the Nuclear Energy Institute, and a cooler reaction from 3E Intelligence, which identifies Mr Blair as "the man who started the nuclear renaissance in Europe." The problem is that the UK is facing an energy supply problem rather sooner than any new nuclear power stations can plausibly be in service.

Nuclear power may be a long term solution, but Mr Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, will probably have to come up with some other ideas pretty quickly.

In the latest sign of confidence in a new era opening for nuclear power, Areva is to spend E610m on a new uranium conversion plant in the south of France.  Meanwhile Eon of Germany has said it is "keen" to be among the leaders in building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK, where the Labour government is signalling a policy shift to back new nuclear build; with the backing of the generally pro-Labour Observer newspaper. And in China, a new company has been established to import up-to-date nuclear technologies, which has agreed in principle to buy for pressurised water reactors from Westinghouse . The door-stopping International Energy Outlook from the US government, buried in all the numbers here, predicted a seven-fold rise in China’s nuclear electricity output by 2030. Although the new plants are safer and produce much less waste than the old ones, however, they still have their problems, as pointed out in the International Herald Tribune: nuclear power may be part of the answer to climate change, but it also can be one of the victims.

Contrary to the hopes of the Bush administration, nuclear power will neither play a major role in reducing US carbon emissions nor in increasing energy security, according to a report by Council on Foreign Relations. Even if a new reactor was built every four or five months over the next forty years, it would only be enough to replace the 103 reactors currently in production in the US, many of which will close down in the next few decades. This replacement rate faced "daunting challenges" said the report, such as a lack of skilled workers and difficulties in getting specialised components.

Texas could be the centre of the nuclear power revival in the US, according to today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required). Energy group TXU, currently the subject of a $45bn takeover bid by private equity group KKR, is planning to build up to five new nuclear reactors in the state, says the paper, with the first reactor on line by 2015. Interestingly, TXU is set to buy its reactor technology from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan rather than market leaders GE and Westinghouse. Mitsubishi’s reactor design has yet to be certified for use in the US, unlike reactors from GE and Westinghouse, which is now owned by a consortium led by Toshiba of Japan.