Of its nature, nuclear power generation is highly-centralised - nuclear stations are economic, if at all, only at gigawatt scale.

But the most interesting potential for power generation today lies in microgeneration at a domestic or community scale, with CHP, wind, solar and hydro generation in domestic or small-community premises operating at kilowatt scale.

This is an area that has been barely explored by government, but if the relatively-minor regulatory obstacles could be removed - chiefly in planning, and the framework for resale to the grid of surplus power - its potential to deal with the energy gap far faster, and at far lower capital cost to the exchequer than either nuclear or any of the other power options available - is considerable.

(There was a very interesting piece in last week's New Scientist on the subject).

I think this is largely correct. Microgeneration has an enormous potential, and some significant benefits, and should be supported.

For example a gas fired micro-CHP in the home could provide hot water at similar efficiency to a normal gas boiler, and electricity on top for free. Unfortunately that product isn't market-ready yet, but the potential is considerable.

But we have growing demand and declining capacity. We do need to build capacity now and we will need an energy mix in the future. So there is no compelling reason to see this as an alternative to nuclear.

Gigawatt plant does have its advantages too.