It is the answer to our energy problems and will help slow climate change, or it is dirty, expensive and dangerous. As the Government launches a review into our future energy needs, Nick Morrison looks at the debate over nuclear power.

IT is probably the most prickly nettle of all. For all the talk about education reform, road pricing and even pensions, there is one issue above all others the Government has been noticeably shy of addressing: nuclear power.

Only two years ago, ministers published a White Paper on future energy policy in which the N-word was barely mentioned. Such are the fears and suspicion around splitting the atom, that no-one was willing to stick their heads above the parapet.

But now it seems the game of radioactive pass the parcel has come to an end. One of the surprises of Tony Blair's speech to the Labour conference last autumn was the suggestion that nuclear power was back on the agenda, and yesterday the Government launched a public consultation on the UK's future energy needs.

According to Trade Secretary Alan Johnson, the issue is whether to close the door on nuclear power, or to throw it wide open. But few are convinced it is anything other than an attempt to prepare the ground for a new generation of nuclear power stations.

The renewed interest in nuclear power is driven primarily by two factors. One is that within a decade Britain will be generating only about 80 per cent of the energy it needs. Dwindling reserves of North Sea gas, declining coal stocks and the impending closure of many existing nuclear plants mean we will be increasingly reliant on imported energy, making us vulnerable to both price fluctuations and to political pressure.

The other factor is climate change, and the need to meet targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. There may be issues surrounding nuclear waste, but it does have the advantage of involving much lower greenhouse gas emissions than gas and coal.

Both of these combine to make nuclear power the only realistic and sensible option for our future energy needs, according to Ian Fells, emeritus professor at Newcastle University and an energy advisor to both the European Commission and the European Union.

"At last common sense seems to have prevailed," he says. "It think it is inevitable that we will rebuild our nuclear power stations, I don't see how we can avoid it." He says the most likely option is to build on the same sites - primarily to avoid lengthy planning delays - meaning Hartlepool's status as home to a nuclear plant would continue long after the existing station shuts, scheduled for between 2008-15.

Nuclear power also has the advantage over renewable sources, including wind and solar power, of being reliable. No-one has to wait for the wind to blow before they can switch their lights on.

"For all these reasons, I think they will conclude that they will have to build new nuclear stations, and I think they will probably need to build ten over the next 25 years," Prof Fells adds.

But, despite these advantages, the unknown is the cost of nuclear power. A US report in 2003 put the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power at 60 per cent higher than from coal or gas plants. But subsequent rises in the cost of fossil fuels and the additional environmental cost may have skewed this equation.

In contrast, a recent report by the Royal Academy of Engineering estimated the cost of nuclear power at 2.26p per kilowatt hour, compared with 3.64p from gas-powered stations and 3.33p from coal-driven plants.

PROF Fells believes the main obstacle to a nuclear power programme is the demonisation of atomic energy, created by a suspicious media and fanned by environmental groups. He says the operating record of nuclear power shows it is responsible for far fewer deaths than either gas or coal, not to mention the level of casualties linked to pollution, between 30-50,000 deaths in the US every year.

"The track record of nuclear power is very good but people jump up and down and talk about accidents like Three Mile Island, but nobody died at Three Mile Island and there was no release of radiation outside the plant," he says.

And he says fears over nuclear waste are similarly groundless: it can be made safe by turning it into glass and burying it in steel tubes deep underground. But the Government knows that designating a particular site will cause an outcry, and has chosen instead to do nothing.

If ministers have now decided to try and "sell" nuclear power, then they face an uphill struggle. A survey published last week showed that although a slight majority would accept new nuclear plants if they helped fight climate change, almost seven out of ten thought using more renewable energy sources and reducing energy use was a better option.

This is the route preferred by Friends of the Earth, who claim that much more can be done to cut our energy consumption. "We don't think there is any need for nuclear power. We believe there are alternatives that already exist," says spokesman Neil Verlander.

"We need to look at renewable energy and at reducing energy demand, as well as cleaner use of fossil fuels, and that is the way forward for cleaner and more sustainable energy. Nuclear power is dirty, expensive and dangerous."

He says waste from nuclear power will be a hazard for years to come, rendering it too great a risk to proceed. "If the ancient Egyptians had nuclear technology, we would still be dealing with the legacy today. It isn't something that is going to go away," he adds.

The cost of making safe the waste from the first 50 years of Britain's civilian nuclear programme is estimated at £56bn, he says, and it would be foolish to embark on a new building drive without first resolving this issue.

HE says some simple steps could have a significant effect on energy consumption: switching off electrical equipment instead of leaving it in stand-by mode would save the equivalent of the energy generated by a small nuclear plant, and energy efficient light bulbs use just a sixth the electricity of conventional bulbs.

Nuclear power as a solution to climate change also ignores the use of fossil fuels in vehicles, one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the Government should be encouraging people to make greener decisions through its tax policies, he adds.

"The disadvantages of nuclear power, the cost, the security and the threat it poses in a potential terrorist attack, means we should be going down a safer road altogether," he adds.

But while renewable energy sources may be much cleaner, they are unlikely to fulfil Britain's needs, according to Prof Fells. For all the hot air expended over wind farms, they account for just half of one per cent of our energy use, and even that is five times more than we get from solar power.

"If we don't go down the nuclear power route then carbon dioxide emissions rise and the greenhouse effect gets worse," says Prof Fells. "The threat of global warming is much, much higher than the dangers associated with nuclear power.

"The answer is we are going to need all the nuclear and all the renewables we can lay our hands on if global warming is going to slow down. Global warming is far more dangerous and will kill far more people than nuclear power."