There will be some in West Somerset, possibly reading this, who remember a time when they couldn't see the outline of a hulking power station stalking the Somerset coast.

Unfortunately, and perhaps regrettably, that time has passed, and so has the time when we didn't need alternative energy sources to service a booming population.

When the original Hinkley A reactor was built on the wildlife-rich headland that pokes into the Bristol Channel, it marked a change in the way we powered the West. Since decommissioned, it was an example of a government trying to tackle the critical problem of how to service a growing Britain.

The West, and the rest of the country, is about to experience another set of growing pains like never before, and central to medicating this will be how to provide power – one of the defining challenges of this and successive governments.

The coalition is likely, nay almost certainly, to follow their predecessors in going nuclear. Whether splitting the atom splits the coalition is almost a moot point. If the Liberal Democrats want to be part of the cabinet, they will eventually allow themselves to be bullied into nuclear, and as a result they will pave the way for Hinkley C, and most probably a new reactor in Oldbury, South Gloucester- shire – another favourite of Labour's.

So what does this mean for our region? It means we have to face our nuclear future with a different attitude. Pressure groups such as Stop Hinkley have rightly, and admirably, given a voice to those who oppose power generation of this ilk. Their arguments are pertinent – the report by Stop Hinkley into the increase in cancer rates in certain areas around the power station, although acknowledged by the local health authority, probably warrants more attention than it has received in the higher echelons of Government. But the coalition will always point to the plethora of scientists who insist the reactors are safe, and that this is the cleanest way. In 2017 it is likely a new reactor will sit in Somerset and it won't look particularly pretty. But if we embrace the benefits it can bring it will make swallowing the nuclear pill easier.

If we are going to accept it, then as taxpayers we should not have to pay for it. EDF should not be allowed a subsidy and it should be regulated in a way that it forced to make true its promises to reinvigorate the economy.

Yes, building a reactor will generate jobs – there is a lot of it to build. And when workers settle in the West to build it, amenities and other business will feed, and hopefully thrive off them. Well-thought out solutions to what happens to these workers' children and where their families will work are required, and most importantly a solution must be found to what happens when Hinkley is built and the builders have nothing to build.

EDF must provide the infrastructure that will supports a new economy – and this just isn't new roads, though transport solutions must be well thought out. The danger is that the public feel marginalised by the fast-track planning procedure, and the coalition has a responsibility to not allow that to happen. Perhaps the biggest challenge will be doing this while maintaining as much of the traditional West as possible. The village of Cannington, a symbol of state-supported industry forced on a community, has become something of a linchpin for the development of the area around Hinkley and plans here are not satisfactory.

Our business report on page 24 illustrates the stuttering nature of how we are emerging from recession and employment rates are similarly slow and there certainly will not be many jobs in the private sector to alleviated the slow pace of recovery, in the near future.

Whether a new reactor will aid this is yet to be seen but when eventually we look at Hinkley's Point scenic headland and cast a gaze at the towering new structure sitting on it, perhaps there will be some silver traced around its outline.