Tony blair last week spoke of the need for global action to combat climate changes. A leading Government official said Britain's only way to meet its key international commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by using nuclear power.

PHIL DOHERTY asked two experts to put the case for and against . . .


Sir Bernard Ingham, Press aide to Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister and a member of the Supporters of Nuclear Energy organisation:

BRITAIN needs more nuclear power stations now because they are the only safe, reliable, economic and clean source of electricity currently available.

Nuclear power has generated electricity in the UK for nearly 50 years without a single death from a radiation accident.

There is no evidence that nuclear power causes leukaemia, whether in so-called clusters or not. Medical science puts hundreds of times more radioactivity into the atmosphere than nuclear electricity. But have you ever heard of an anti-nuclear campaigner refusing an X-ray?

As for Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident imaginable, 700 UN scientists crawling over its effects on human health since it occurred in 1986 have attributed only 45 deaths to it . . . less than five day's carnage on our roads.

Nuclear power is also reliable. Over the last 50 years nuclear has provided up to one third of our electricity - now 22 per cent - essentially the baseload we rely on every day.

The Government and lots of other people say it is expensive. But a recent independent review by the Royal Academy of Engineering found it was virtually level pegging with gas as the cheapest option at 2.2p to 2.3p per unit. Since then gas prices have soared.

Nuclear is now the cheapest option, especially since the expected cost of decommissioning its power stations and storing waste - a mere 4pc of its unit price - is included in the price you pay for nuclear electricity. No other source of electricity meets those costs - or the cost of the damage they do to the environment - in its current price.

As for disposing of nuclear waste, there is no scientific, technological or engineering problem in storing nuclear waste for the 500 to 600 years necessary to allow its radioactivity to decay to the level of uranium in the ground. All we need is a Government with the guts to designate a site, as other countries have done.

And if global warming is the threat Tony Blair says it is, then we need more nuclear power stations now because they emit next-to-no greenhouse gases.

The Government's current irresponsible energy policy would replace coal and nuclear, now generating half our electricity, with expensive "renewables" like wind power, energy conservation and imported gas. It is a recipe for disaster. When the lights go out - as they might - the nation will demand nuclear power forthwith.



Jean McSorley, nuclear campaign co-ordinator for Greenpeace:

THERE are very powerful economic, practical and environmental arguments ranged against building new nuclear reactors across the UK.

An examination of the costs of nuclear power shows that proposals for nuclear reactors just don't add up.

For the UK nuclear program to maintain its current share of the electricity market there would have to be an extremely expensive "new-build" program.

The lowest estimates provided by the nuclear industry lobbyists are that to replace existing reactors - with 10 new plants - would entail capital expenditure of £5.85bn to £8.37bn. This does not include decommissioning and waste management costs.

Indeed, industry estimates on the full costs of nuclear power have been described as "extremely optimistic" by the Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office.

Could new plants be built quickly enough to help address climate change?

The answer is "no". To merely replace existing plants one reactor would have to be built every year and a half between 2010 and 2025. Some industry analysts don't think the first new reactor could come on-line until 2018 or 2020.

A new fleet of reactors would have little effect in tackling climate change. Using estimates of future energy demand the planned new reactors would offset approximately just four to five per cent of the UK's projected carbon dioxide - CO? - emissions.

To offset more CO?, yet more reactors would have to be built. Twenty plants to offset 10pc of CO? would cost £11.16bn to £16.74bn, 40 plants would cost £22.32bn to £33.48bn at today's prices.

There are also vital questions about the long-term storage and disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Latest estimates are that it will be another 25 to 30 years at least before a waste repository is operating . . . if such a plan is ever accepted.

It would be reckless to build more reactors when we haven't solved the current massive nuclear waste problem.

In addition, there are valid concerns over the risks of reactor accidents and the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear reactor sites, nuclear waste stores and radioactive waste transports.

But the best reason for rejecting nuclear power is that we simply don't need it! Study after study shows that renewable energy from the wind, waves and sun can more than provide for our energy needs.

We certainly shouldn't be diverting billions of pounds away from installing these new technologies into old and dirty technologies like nuclear power.