Near-zero-carbon nuclear power is popular with conservatives, while unproven CCS is meant to seduce the many coal states.
The document called for increased in areas such as solar power, biofuels, nuclear fission and carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Lower gas prices will increase energy consumption and displace some lower-carbon nuclear power and renewables, but will also squeeze out some dirty coal and oil.
But if gas is plentiful and cheap enough to replace carbon-rich coal, it will also be in a position to replace carbon-free nuclear and renewables, and in doing so more carbon dioxide will be emitted than would otherwise be the case.
Ministers are trying to make planning rules more nuclear-friendly, and hope that tighter carbon-emission limits will help nuclear energy shine by comparison with fossil-fuel plants.
Nuclear energy does not produce carbon dioxide and therefore does not create climate change issues.
FORBES: What Are The Most Important Things To Know/Understand About Nuclear Energy?
Shale gas is also likely to divert investment in Britain from pricier but carbon-free nuclear and renewable-energy sources.
ECONOMIST: Shale gas will not solve Britain��s energy problems
It is true that nuclear energy does not produce carbon dioxide, the chief culprit behind man-made global warming.
If lawmakers would ever attach a price to carbon, then nuclear power would look even more attractive, advocates say, noting also that natural gas is a volatile commodity.
The coal industry may be fighting new federal emissions standards, air-pollution regulations and even the idea of carbon pricing, but those things are all a boon for carbon-free nuclear power.
ECONOMIST: America��s nuclear industry struggles to get off the floor
But they oppose nuclear power, a position that puts them at odds with a fair number of environmentalists who have concluded, reluctantly, that a low-carbon future without nuclear energy is a pipe-dream.
ECONOMIST: A looming electricity crunch could trip up a new government
We need a lot more nuclear, because if you're serious about carbon reductions, you need to be serious about building more nuclear power plants.
WSJ: Dominion Resources Chief Seeks Coordinated U.S. Energy Policy
Of course, nuclear power is not the only carbon emission-free option.
And they'll go nuclear, which produces almost no carbon emissions.
The better way would be through some sort of carbon tax, which would penalise fossil fuels but not any fuel free of carbon emissions, whether nuclear power or renewables.
IEA's boffins have analysed how much of a boost nuclear power could get from a carbon tax, and the answer is quite a lot possibly enough to compete with coal.
Shuttering even one U.S. nuclear power plant could unleash massive carbon emissions if fossil-fuel plants were used to make up the lost power, according to a new study released this weekend by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University.
FORBES: Shutting Nuclear Plants Would Boost Coal And Carbon Emissions
With carbon out of favor, nuclear is seeing a renaissance in social acceptability.
But low electricity prices make it more difficult for truly low carbon energy sources, like nuclear, solar, and wind, to compete.
It must implement regulations that capture the environmental benefits of nuclear, such as low emissions of carbon dioxide as well as nitrogen and sulfur oxides.
WSJ: The Experts: What's the Best Way Forward on Nuclear Power?
But you say that even a moderate carbon tax would not make nuclear power competitive, noting that the price of permits in Europe's emissions-trading scheme implies a social cost of carbon dioxide of euro20 per tonne.
In a Commons statement on 12 July 2011, Mr Huhne said that new investment was needed in nuclear power, renewable energy, and carbon capture and storage to "keep the lights on" despite Britain's rising demand for electricity.
Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientist, recently argued that one further generation of nuclear power stations is needed (in Britain at least) to buy time, in order to keep down emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, while new carbon-free non-nuclear technologies are developed.
But nuclear energy, even if boosted by a carbon tax, also carries grave environmental liabilities.
They seem more inclined to invest in other low-carbon power sources, such as nuclear, solar and wind.
And the lack of climate legislation meant there was no price on carbon, which would have favoured nuclear power.
Nuclear energy's best hope lies in carbon pricing, which forces fossil-fuel plants to pay for the environmental cost of the carbon they generate.
ECONOMIST: Nuclear energy is unlikely to work without a carbon tax
This is driven by a combination of factors: low power prices due to the development of unconventional gas, the lack of incentives for low-carbon power and rising costs of nuclear power.
WSJ: The Experts: What's the Best Way Forward on Nuclear Power?
As a result, there is an unlikely alliance between the nuclear industry and many environmentalists, as a growing number of greens have come to believe that nuclear energy is the best way to reduce carbon emissions.
应用推荐