Britain has an energy dilemma: on one hand it wants to reduce CO ₂ emissions in line with the Kyoto protocol; on the other, the country is phasing out nuclear energy, resulting in the UK becoming dependent on just one reactor by the year 2023.

Britain has an energy dilemma: on one hand it wants to reduce CO ₂ emissions in line with the Kyoto protocol; on the other, the country is phasing out nuclear energy, resulting in the UK becoming dependent on just one reactor by the year 2023.

Nuclear energy is more or less carbon-neutral. So closing the country's ageing nuclear plants will lead to increases in CO ₂ emissions unless these reactors are replaced by other neutral sources, such as renewables, and carbon-free coal, or via energy-efficiency measures.

Partly to address this conundrum, the Government is pushing for huge investments in wind power. By the year 2010, it is hoped that renewables will account for 10 per cent of the country's electricity mix.

That said, even if the Government reaches this goal, which at present is unlikely, other carbon-free sources will be needed. As carbon-free coal is at least a decade or two away from commercialisation, and energy- efficiency measures will contribute more in reducing heat than electricity use, the most likely alternative in the near to medium term is the building of new nuclear stations. However, as many members of the public, stakeholders and even politicians are opposed to this, several issues need to be addressed to help ensure that new plants can be built in the UK.

Most importantly, politicians need to get to grips with the waste issue. It will be difficult to build new nuclear plants if the politicians and stakeholders are still debating where the waste should go. Indeed Finland, the only European nation aside from France that has ordered a new nuclear reactor in the past couple of years, has more or less solved the problem, making the decision to build a fifth reactor so much easier. It built a repository to bury high- and medium-level waste deep under the ground.

What to do and where to put the nuclear waste in the UK has been discussed since 1976, when the Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution recommended that a national disposal facility should be built. Such a site still does not exist, and another body, this time the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), is examining what should be done with the waste. But it isn't rocket science; there are simple technical solutions available. Hopefully, CoRWM will come to a political acceptable one soon.

The issue of public perceptions on the possible risks posed by nuclear energy also has to be handled properly. This remains a topic, although researched to a great extent by academics such as Baruch Fischhoff and Ortwin Renn, to which the nuclear sector in this country has not paid sufficient attention. That is unfortunate, as a close analysis would identify the key public concerns: that the industry is veiled in secrecy; that the risks posed by reactors are unfamiliar and out of one's control; and that there is the potential for massive accidents. Had the industry more closely examined these fears in the past, it would not be struggling to address them alongside the movement for new build.

Sweden has met public concern head-on - for example, by developing a nuclear-waste roadshow where industry representatives travel from town to town in a large truck full of displays, short films and mock-ups that show what the waste looks like and how it is stored. In so doing, the public becomes more familiar with the issues. Is it any wonder that, today, Sweden does not have a nuclear-waste debate?

What is needed in the UK is a three-pronged strategy. First, find out exactly what people are worried about. Second, address these issues with roadshow-style displays. Third, develop a transparent process that goes right the way through from the inquiry stage to licensing. Transparency, if done correctly, leads to public trust; secrecy destroys it.

One worrying trend is the virtual fistfight between renewable supporters and the nuclear sector. This is unhelpful as it overheats the debate and leads politicians to put off making any real decisions on the topic. In all honesty, there is room for both renewables and nuclear build in the country's energy mix, so why can't these parties work together?

For new build to be successful, the sector needs all the third-party support it can get, so why not involve the environmental NGOs that are so concerned about climate change?

To resolve these issues, the Government should consider establishing an independent commission where an open, honest and transparent discussion can take place.

Ragnar Lofstedt is professor and director of the King's Centre for Risk Management. His book 'Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies', is published by Palgrave Macmillan.