Perhaps the biggest danger of going for nuclear is that it gives the message that "technology will provide the answers and we don't need to change".

This is not the message people need to hear. Our current level of energy use is not sustainable, not just because of climate change but because sources of fossil fuels and uranium are finite. The easiest to get supplies are used first, and we are moving on to those that are more costly and more challenging. There is still lots left, but we can't get it out as fast as we now want to use it - and if we could, it would just run out more quickly. The sooner we move to truely sustainable energy supplies the easier it will be.

So the issue currently shoulod be how best to invest remaining fossil fuel energy to create a sustainable society. I think that we'd all agree that the top priority should be investment to cut our energy use - in better insulation and energy efficiency.

But after this, should we be investing in developing and installing more effective wind and tidal systems (for example) or in building nuclear installation and the mining, processing and reprocessing of nuclear materials?

Also how is the capital to be found for the construction work?

There is debate about whether nuclear is viable without Government subsidy - and the constantly increasing costs given for cleaning up our existing plants would suggest this aspect at least is an unknown liability.

For wind and tidal we are talking about many more units than for nuclear, but each individually cheaper. If microgeneration were encouraged, then householders would only have to stump up around £1000 a time for small wind turbines. Small subsidies and clear planning guidance could get this moving quickly. It would also spread generating capacity across the country in a similar pattern to consumption - minimising transmission losses.

A key effect of this would be to make individuals more aware of their role in energy use. Installing a water meter encourages people to also get water butts. Generating one's own energy is likely to challenge people to cut their energy use too.

Gas and electricity meters should no longer be hidden under the stairs, but ticking away on the hall wall for all to see the cost of leaving the TV on stand-by!

Remember that only a small fraction of our end-use energy is currently electricity. Far more energy from oil and gas is used to provide transport and heating than is used as electricity. Even doubling our current nuclear capacity will not solve our need for petrol and diesel for transport.

Hydrogen can be generated from the electricity, and used to power our cars and trucks. But there are energy losses at every stage - and we would have to build the infrastructure to run as a hydrogen economy.

Undoubtedly the transition to true sustainability will be challenging. We don't yet know exactly what these lifestyles will be like. But I think it is better to accept this challenge head on, rather than hide behind the hope that technology holds the answers.

I see nuclear as the option for people not brave enough to face reality...