THE new nuclear era could bring the solution to our energy needs - or leave the nation a `poisonous and dangerous' legacy.

That was the divided opinion from an M.E.N. debate featuring experts from academia, business and politics.

The panel and an invited audience converged on Urbis to discuss whether nuclear energy represents the way forward for this country. The debate was chaired by Channel M presenter Andy Crane.

Dr Paul Howarth, director of research at Manchester University's Dalton Nuclear Institute, said that stringent safety measures ensure nuclear energy is `safe' and will cover future energy needs.

He said: "Nuclear technology is an extremely reliable technology and its safety record is exemplary. Technology has moved on significantly and the statistics relating to accidents are so low as to be inconsequential.

"It's not the case that nuclear is the only answer to the problems facing our energy requirements - but it is a part of that solution."

Dr Howarth denied that nuclear energy is `old-hat' compared with renewable sources.

"There are technologies that can fill the gap but what you need is a diverse and balanced energy mix. "The energy challenge is not a five or ten year challenge - it's a challenge which will really hit home in 100 years."

Dr Howarth denied electricity generated by nuclear reactors is expensive compared to renewable sources.

Sustainability expert Professor Erik Bichard, from Salford University, said the government would have been better advised to invest in a new generation of renewable energy sources - which ultimately will prove more cost-effective.

Potential

He said: "Most reports cite that the potential of renewable energy to meet our current and future demands already exists.

"I don't accept that nuclear energy should be a part of the future energy mix and the investment would be better spent on renewables.

"There is a mixture of technologies out there - such as wind and wave - which are capable of meeting future demands and solar energy can also be much more productive.

"The amount of carbon saved if you build a new nuclear power station is quite small - about four per cent. In my opinion the inherent risks with nuclear energy far outweigh the benefits. And then there's the nuclear waste issue - just how are the by-products to be disposed of?"

Adrian Bull, UK stakeholder relations manager of Preston-based nuclear company Westinghouse, accepted the cost of building a new nuclear reactor is in the region of £6bn.

He stressed the importance of the region's expertise in the nuclear sector which he said was good for the economy and jobs.

When quizzed about the possible long-term health effects of exposure to radiation he said: "Fossil fuels produce millions of tonnes of waste per year compared to a comparatively small amount of waste from the nuclear industry.

"There's been a great deal of research by the government on the health impact on dealing with the impact of radiation - those departments exist to ensure that the sector operates within its guidelines.

"My argument is that we need to keep the nuclear option within the wider energy tool box.

"At the moment, those sources of renewable energy are not present which can deal with the high volumes of electricity which is needed in this country."

Prof Bichard disputed this statement.

He said: "Portugal does not have a nuclear programme and within a decade, it went from a standstill to generating 10 per cent of its electricity by wind, wave and solar.

"In the not too distant future, it also hopes to generate around 60 per cent of all its energy needs from renewables. But in the past, the government has been afraid of trying to influence out behaviour at risk of creating what people describe as a nanny state.

"But we need to have incentives in place to encourage people to cut back on their fuel use - it's no longer acceptable to walk down the street at night and see lights left when people aren't using those rooms."

These views about the necessity for a fundamental change in people's attitudes were echoed by Steve Moore, the Environment Agency's manager in the north west.

He said: "Our whole way of living needs to evolve. In terms of energy, in the short-term there is a huge gap and 20 per cent of our nuclear supply will disappear in the next decade.

"There will be a huge challenge to conserve energy and while renewables can play a part, we are not there yet.

"The job of the Environment Agency is to ensure that the nuclear installations of the future are world class. And we finally believe that we can do that."

Legacy

When the debate was opened to the floor, a member of the audience described the government's `covert' decision to support nuclear renewal as a `cuckoo in the nest' which also had the potential to leave a `poisonous and dangerous' legacy.

Another audience member - American academic Robert Berry who works as an environmental assessor - took exception to these points.

His belief is also that nuclear energy has a role to play as part of the wider energy mix.

He said: "Nuclear energy has to be a part of the solution - renewables are a good thing but they are not going to make up for the shortfall in the country's energy needs.

"The issues surrounding nuclear waste are a problem at the moment but they will be dealt with in the future as science advances."

The issue of the safety of both nuclear waste and the security of reactors was of major concern to many members of the audience.

When quizzed on the topic, Mr Bull said that industry has progressed a long way since Chernobyl.

He said: "The likelihood of an accident reoccurring is less than the likelihood of an asteroid colliding with the Earth."

Dr Howarth said: "A lot is talked about the ability of countries with civil nuclear programmes to diversify into nuclear weapons.

"In all honesty, these two spheres are as different as chalk and cheese."

An audience member asked the panel if nuclear would become the `tobacco industry of the future' - in terms of not coming clean about potential and inherent dangers.

But Steve Moore, from the Environment Agency,, said that nuclear has a good record worldwide.

He said: "It's safe, secure and environmentally of the highest standard. We are saying that waste has to be dealt with and we all have that dilemma in society."

Coun Bill Risby opposed all aspects of atomic energy throughout the debate and called on the government to abandon its new nuclear programme.

He said: "I don't believe that the resources that are being pumped into the nuclear programme are being used in the best interests of the people of this country - they should go towards renewable projects instead.

"My interests lie with my constituents and the people of this country - and I think that we are currently walking down a very dangerous road."
Tweet