Having read the submissions to the debate so far, I can only congratulate the nuclear lobby on pulling the wool so firmly over so many people’s eyes. People don’t "believe" that renewables can meet our needs, but we already have the technologies at our disposal (geothermal pumps, roof-mounted solar cells and mini wind turbines) to turn every house in the land into a power station, producing clean, abundant, indigenous energy that we don’t have to buy from Niger, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. Increasing numbers of enterprising souls are experiencing the satisfaction of seeing their meters tick backwards, as their surplus energy production is fed into the national grid for a tidy profit. But of course, the vested interests don’t want you to explore these options; they want to keep hold of the means of energy production while you keep paying them your quarterly bill. The UK has a golden opportunity to become a world leader in renewables, thereby securing our energy supply and reviving our industrial, technological and export base. Vision and guts are required of the Government; instead, we’ve got Blair, Prescott and Malcolm Wicks. Lord help us. Jasper Barraclough, London

By all means let us continue to develop renewables, but nuclear power stations can be built in about eight years if we adopt a standard design as the French have done. How long will it take to build 2000 wind generators to produce the amount of electrical energy equivalent to a nuclear power station, to connect them to the grid and to install an adequate "spinning reserve" to cover periods of low or very high wind speeds? Charles Hughes, Felixstowe, Suffolk

One of the difficulties with nuclear power is not easily being able to reduce the electricity output as consumer demand falls. So nuclear has been used for base load which continues 24 hours a day. If we harnessed the overnight power to electrolyse water - ie, split it into hydrogen and oxygen - we could use the result to provide fuel (hydrogen) for cars rather than burn fossil fuels. This might help change the economics of nuclear power generation. Nigel Reed, Truro

Nuclear power has always been inevitable; the only alternative would be to scrap our use of power at current levels and go back to washing clothes in tubs as Grandma did. Would the greens like that? Jim Golightly, Prudhoe, Northumberland

As an ex-coalminer it has puzzled me why swathes of energy have been abandoned by this country. Three hundred years reserves, last I read, lying wasted, unused, abandoned. Cannot some minds devise ways of using it without adding to pollution? I as a pensioner, I need to be supplied energy in as cheap a form possible to survive, let alone be comfortable. Come on, you bright young thinkers, give Britain self-sufficiency, clean and pure. After all, we invented so many other things didn't we? Geoff Murphy, St Helens, Merseyside

We have little choice but to adopt widespread use of nuclear fission technology. All the other so-called "renewable" or "sustainable" alternatives are simply impractical for the large-scale power generation required for a country of 60 million. In the long term, however, we must develop an alternative and the current research project in France for practical fusion power is at least a start. But in the end we need scientists, engineers, and technicians for this increasingly complex technology, and as a now sadly retired engineer I am unable to contribute. We must encourage the young to take up the "difficult" subjects: physics, mathematics, etc, rather than other technologically irrelevant disciplines because all the easy stuff has been done; what lies ahead is much more challenging. Think about it. What revolutionary discovery or technology has been invented in the past 30 years? We have simply got better and better at the same things - eg, another version of Windows, rather than something really new. In my own field, I can remember the impact that the transistor had on vacuum tube technology; the impact of the integrated circuit on discrete component electronics; the impact of the laser, etc, but this was 30 years ago. What have we done since? Adrian Ryan, Ardara, Ireland

So now we are told that nuclear power will not be economical after all because it will increasingly involve the use of carbon energy in the process of mining and refining uranium. Why wasn't this made plain to the public before? All credit to Magnus Linklater who questions how efficient nuclear energy actually is. There is a self-evident case for investing more in alternative energies. Blair, as someone else has said earlier in this debate, is only supporting nuclear energy because he thinks the public are against the green alternative. I would like to suggest that the public may say they prefer nuclear energy but that is only because they have been misled and misinformed as to the true facts about it. So, nothing new there then. Garth Carthy, Yarm

Nuclear power is the only answer we have to our growing electricity needs if we are to cut back on emissions. All the people who are seeking a "green" solution should go and see wind farms and the damage to the environment. Unfortunately, solar power is not a workable solution in the UK, and wave power will not produce the power required. We must use nuclear power now and lead the way, showing the rest of the world that this planet can be saved; or is it already too late? Matthew Bartlett, Northchapel

Maybe we should be attempting to focus on a partnership between renewable sources and nuclear. The advantages are clear: renewable sources are unable to deal with the kind of surges in power use that occur during breaks in Coronation Street; nuclear can be cranked up to provide this spare capacity. Also nuclear could provide the kind of back-up necessary in case of environmental conditions that would prevent renewable sources providing power. James Bennett, Portsmouth

I would like to know exactly what the costs will be to the taxpayer over this will be. If it's nil and everything is funded through electricity bills, then fine, no problem. If nuclear is really cheaper then it's a clear runner, but only if there is cast iron way of covering decommissioning costs through ongoing electricity bills. Anthony Harrisson, London

The Government could cut greenhouse emissions far more quickly and easily simply by putting higher taxes on flying. That's what is causing rising emissions in the first place. Blair is preferring the nuclear option because while it makes more mess, he thinks it loses fewer votes. Despite nuclear waste, nuclear power is ultimately far less damaging to our environment than CO2 emissions, so we are better off with nuclear power than without it. Global warming has probably already killed more people than Chernobyl and it's barely started. However, political targets of cost and timing must not lead to dangerous shortcuts when reactors are being built. Richard Milne, Edinburgh

Excellent. After all these years of hesitation perhaps there is some people that recognise the benefits of nuclear power. Eduardo Romero, Liverpool

As somebody who has worked in the UK and US energy industries I agree that renewables are not the answer. Clean coal is currently viewed in the States as the cheaper solution, although GE has been lobbying for government subsidies for nuclear. The last US nuclear plant was built in 1992 and cost about $5,000/kW. This is ten times the cost of gas-fired plants, and excludes decommissioning costs. Since then, nuclear plants have been viewed as too expensive. New clean coal fired plants can be built for about $1,500/kW and CO2 removal technologies are being developed. The UK Government has a poor track record as a builder of nuclear power plants. Historically they have been over-budget, picked technologies which nobody else used and which didn't work well. The Department of Energy's economic analysis submitted to the public inquiry to justify Sizewell B in the 1980s used some dubious assumptions to make the case, but somehow they got away with it. It would be interesting to review the current economics. Hugo Peters, Dallas, Texas