>>11465939this book has a great section on the subject
pg 141, Taking the 'bloom of the nuclear rose'
>In the postwar period, nuclear energy represented precisely thesame technological improvement over oil which oil had represented
over coal when Lord Fisher and Winston Churchill argued at the end
of the nineteenth century that Britain’s navy should convert to oil
from coal. The major difference in the 1970s was that Britain and
her cousins in the United States were fi rmly in control of world oil
supplies. World nuclear technology threatened to open unbounded
energy possibilities, especially if plans for commercial nuclear fast
breeder reactors were realized, as well as for thermonuclear fusion.
In the immediate aftermath of the 1974 oil shock, two organizations
were established within the nuclear industry, both, signifi cantly
enough, based in London. In early 1975, an informal semisecret
group was established, the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, or ‘London
Club,’ as it was known. The group included Britain, the United States
and Canada, together with France, Germany, Japan and the USSR.
This was an initial Anglo-American effort to secure self-restraint on
nuclear export. This group was complemented in May 1975 by the
formation of another secretive organization, the London ‘Uranium
Institute,’ which brought together the world’s major suppliers of
uranium. This was dominated by the traditional British territories,
including Canada, Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom.
These ‘inside’ organizations were necessary, but by no means
suffi cient, for the Anglo-American interests to contain the nuclear
‘threat’ of the early 1970s. As one prominent antinuclear American
from the Aspen Institute put it, ‘We must take the bloom off the
“nuclear rose.”’ And take it off they did.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/34a6/e234dde004c4af7f7e491df0d2a3448014aa.pdf?_ga=2.70864464.1129132649.1584216022-81050576.1583599916 
