In the quest for a clean energy source, one that produces little or no CO2 emissions, nuclear power has many supporters. Currently, 439 nuclear reactors in 31 countries supply 15 per cent of the world's electricity; in France 78 per cent of its electricity requirements are provided by 59 nuclear reactors. Furthermore, 31 reactors are under construction, including one in Finland which is the first one to be built in western Europe in 15 years, and many more are said to be in the planning stage worldwide.

Detractors argue against nuclear power on several fronts. They are exorbitantly costly to build, costing several billion pounds each, they say. Safety remains an issue – who can forget the 1986 Chernobyl disaster (proponents claim new reactors are much less likely to meltdown than before). Uranium is likely to be finite, although it is not in danger of scarcity soon. Then there's the toxic waste issue, which is highly radioactive, and cannot be disposed of completely only kept in ‘safe’ bunkers.

In some countries nuclear waste is ‘reprocessed’ a procedure that involves separating plutonium from the rest of the spent fuel. Plutonium, in the wrong hands, can be used to make nuclear weapons. Dissenters argue that in every country without exception where nuclear research began for benign purposes, such as producing electricity, subsequently it has since been appropriated for malign reasons. Terrorism too, in the form of an attack on a nuclear plant, remains a real threat.

As clean fuels go the negatives seem to outweigh the upsides when compared to other renewable, less expensive, less dangerous and less contentious sources of green energy. The nuclear lobby, however, is persuasive and powerful with supporters in government. The prime minister Gordon Brown has said wants to build 10 new power stations in the UK at a cost of £30-40bn, arguing that expanded nuclear power is essential to cut carbon emissions and global warming. Opponents argue his position is a green-wash. Let debate commence.