THE PRIME MINISTER wants to persuade us that Britain has no alternative but to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. He is wrong.

The focus on nuclear distorts the energy debate. Securing energy supplies and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are rightly at the top of the political agenda, but they have to be considered in relation to the whole energy mix and not just to the 8 per cent provided by nuclear power. The Prime Minister says the facts are stark, and contrasts past self-sufficiency in gas with future dependence on imports. He mentions the Middle East, Africa and Russia. Everything seems designed to alarm, yet the gradual decline of North Sea gas has been known for decades and British multinationals are investing heavily in new infrastructure to ensure imports come from diverse sources.

Just a year ago, the Department of Trade and Industry announced a deal with Norway that “could secure up to 20 per cent of the UK’s future gas demand”. From Russia, we get about 1 per cent of our supply through the European interconnector. Regardless of the future of nuclear, Britain will have a very considerable demand for gas and most will be imported, in common with almost all our European neighbours.

The nuclear debate must be seen for what it is — a debate about electricity, which accounts for only 18 per cent of total energy consumed. As obsolete power stations are closed, nuclear’s contribution will fall from 19 per cent of electricity generated today to 7 per cent by 2020. This is the basis of the powerful nuclear industry’s campaign to “keep the lights on”.

No one can underestimate the importance of the domestic electricity supply but the lights will have to be kept on by other means. The gap opening up over the next 15 years will be filled from non-nuclear sources. Why? Because even with an accelerated planning process no nuclear power stations could be built in time.

New nuclear build can contribute nothing to energy security nor to climate change over the crucial period between now and 2020. Perhaps acknowledging this paradox, the Prime Minister cited 2025 as the year when there would be a dramatic gap in our targets to reduce CO2 emissions if current policy remained unchanged.

But current policy can and should be changed. CO2 emissions depend both on the amount and the type of energy we use. The scope for energy efficiency and conservation is huge. The Government itself estimated that the use of current commercially available energy-efficiency measures could reduce energy demand by 30 per cent in the economy as a whole. Take Woking Borough Council: over 14 years it reduced energy demand by nearly 50 per cent and made CO2 savings of 77 per cent. It has demonstrated conclusively that change can be brought about by green procurement, by basic energy conservation, community use of combined heat and power, biomass, photovoltaics, electric vehicles and even fuel cells.

The Prime Minister has rightly called for a step change in energy efficiency. But it is only by moving to new low-carbon technologies that we can reach our target of 60 per cent CO2 reductions by 2050. It is argued that nuclear is essential to this low carbon future. It is not. It is possible now to calculate CO2 emissions from new nuclear on-stream in 2024. The Sustainable Development Commission found a mere 4 per cent CO2 advantage in nuclear over gas.

But there is no reason to choose gas as a substitute for nuclear. Alternative technologies are available. Over the past decade Germany has demonstrated what can be achieved. Its wind power already exceeds our nuclear capacity and its solar energy is rapidly catching up. Although the UK target of 10 per cent of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2010 is likely to fall slightly short, our own wind power industry is growing faster than predicted.

Renewable forms of energy are almost limitless in their potential. They are flexible and offer good security of supply. Nuclear, by contrast, requires uranium to be mined and transported, produces toxic waste and poses a potential terrorist threat. There is also no agreement on the cost of new nuclear build. Britain has no recent experience of building plants and new designs would have to be imported. Tackling the existing legacy of nuclear waste is likely to cost the taxpayer at least £70 billion.

Significantly, the Nuclear Industry Association recommends that the Treasury should guarantee a minimum price for electricity over the 40- year lifetime of each reactor. This is a choice we don’t need to make. Nuclear power is now an old technology dependent on a centralised system of control and distribution. It takes energy policy in the reverse direction from the new clean and green technologies that can provide more decentralised and secure systems. Incentives are now in place to accelerate the development in renewables, combined heat and power and microgeneration.

Government task forces abound — the latest reported that biomass could meet 6 per cent of electricity demand by 2020. A policy to create a low-carbon future embracing all sectors of the economy would be popular and inspiring. If the Government chooses the nuclear path it will divide the country when public opinion has never been so concerned about the environment nor so ready to accept that behaviour change is necessary.

Joan Ruddock is Labour MP for Lewisham Deptford

Times Recommends

• The final throw of a gambler
• Basra - here's the good news story
• We're beating crime - believe it