As we have seen from the four case studies, the challenge of climate change has evoked a range of responses and strategies. Thus we see that France maintains its policy of heavy reliance on nuclear energy, strongly backed by government — funded research and development. Sweden, reluctantly perhaps, has accepted that a significant nuclear contribution to electricity supply is inevitable while California may be categorised as still deciding but with the indicators firmly pointing to a large increase in nuclear capacity. Germany on the other hand has adopted an entirely non-nuclear course: in effect it has rejected a technical risk in favour of an economic one. The goal of heroic reductions in GHG emissions with no economic damage will be difficult enough to achieve even with the use of nuclear power; achieving it without nuclear power may be impossible. Germany will prove the argument one way or the other but in the meantime it is likely that most other countries will prefer to keep their options open.

Once a decision has been taken to adopt or to continue with nuclear power, a whole new rank of subsidiary decisions must be taken: what type of reactor, which fuel cycle, where to obtain fuel, how to ensure safety and security, when to decommission, how to manage spent fuel and so on. All these questions concern one of the many specialities that fall within the overall framework of nuclear power and all are covered in succeeding chapters.