George Monbiot debates with readers about his reasons for supporting nuclear technology, but not the industry

My position on nuclear power has not done me any favours within the green movement. But it's the result of a recognition of some harsh realities, and the urgent need to resolve what would otherwise be irreconcilable conflicts. 

I've argued that the nuclear power plants we shut down will be replaced either with fossil fuels or with the renewables that would otherwise have replaced fossil fuels, exposing us and the planet to much greater risk.

I've discovered that the dangers of nuclear power have been exaggerated, often with the help of wildly inaccurate junk science..

I've argued that the moral burden cuts both ways: the dangers of exaggerating the risks of nuclear power are at least as great as the dangers of downplaying it. 

I've explained the tough constraints we face, as electricity production must rise if we're to decarbonise heating and transport.

I've shown that the choice between renewables and nuclear is a false one: we appear to need both. And that, contrary to popular belief, it is the cheapest of our low-carbon options in the UK.

I've argued that there is no inconsistency between opposing the machinations and corruption of the nuclear industry and supporting the technology.

(By George Monbiot, The Guardian, 05/07/2011)