FOR a generation, energy policy has simmered quietly on the political backburner. Post-Chernobyl, no party would risk electoral suicide by backing a new generation of nuclear power stations and the British public continued to squander electricity as if there were no tomorrow. Suddenly tomorrow is here. Spiralling energy prices, declining domestic production, instability in the world's oil and gas markets, and concern about global warming have combined to make power supplies a burning issue. Such is the urgency of the Westminster government's quest for a coherent energy policy, that after the briefest of glances at the first draft of the domestic energy review, the prime minister was telling the CBI this week that nuclear generation is "back on the agenda with a vengeance". Though Mr Blair can be criticised for pre-empting the review and consultation, he is right to put this hot potato

back on the menu. It is one JackMcConnell has bent backwards to avoid for fear of alienating his coalition partners.

Though the first new nuclear stations probably would be built close to population centres in England rather than Scotland - which historically overproduces power - Scots need to be part of a debate on this issue. We depend on nuclear for 40-per cent of our energy needs - double the percentage for the whole UK. When Torness and Hunterston are eventually decommissioned, what will replace them?

The crux of the scientific argument can be characterised as "the David and Jonathan Debate". The government's chief scientist, SirDavid King, believes that nuclear is a sine qua non, without which Britain faces a huge energy gap when old nuclear stations are decommissioned; that even if Britain meets its ambitious renewables target, the country cannot meet its carbon dioxide reduction targets without it. The threat of regular power cuts and empty petrol tanks outweighs the risks associated with nuclear waste disposal, he argues.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the government's sustainable development commission, disputes the looming energy gap. If Britain stopped being "unbelievably profligate"with energy and set its face against nuclear because of insurmountable problems with waste, more effort and investment would go into maximising production from wind, wave, tidal and solar power.

Both sides dispute the other's figures. Recent opinion polls appear to indicate that the British public is becoming more pro-nuclear, partly because the turbines and pylons required forwindpower are so unpopular. Yesterday, the French company, Areva, estimated that it could have new British nuclear reactors up and running by 2017, provided the planning process is streamlined. They are probably being optimistic but, either way, all of a sudden, the timeframe for making this crucial decision looks tight. Nobody is pretending that nuclear power can be the only ingredient in Britain's energy cake, but can we afford to rule it out of the mix? While open to persuasion, we remain to be convinced.