The nuclear option

To The Daily Telegraph

Investing heavily in wind generation will not solve our energy crisis, but will only lead to expensive, unreliable electricity, with more frequent blackouts. The construction of more wind farms will further damage our landscape and wildlife. Faced with the oil embargo in the 1970s, France opted to go nuclear. Since then, 58 reactors have been built on French soil and the French have also built (or are currently building) reactors in Africa, Asia, America and Europe. France is the world’s biggest exporter of electricity, which is a huge boost to its economy.

Nuclear plants are expensive to build due to stringent regulations and drawn-out public inquiries, but they prove to be a very reliable, low-cost source of energy over their lifetime. Nuclear must qualify for the most versatile and reliable form of energy. It has a safety record which is second to none. It is clean, environmentally friendly and occupies less land than other generators. We should invest in it before it is too late. Fred Catlow, Thurso, Caithness

To The Guardian

There is much about this Government’s – and, to its shame, Labour’s – new-found love affair with nuclear power that makes no sense. You cannot just turn off a nuclear power station. If we have 25% of our electricity generated by nuclear, then on days when all our needs can be met by renewables we will have to turn off 25% of our much cheaper renewable feed while using expensive, taxpayer-subsidised nuclear generation.

Further, we have no way of dealing with the mountains of dangerous waste that has been accruing since the 1950s, and nuclear power stations are vulnerable to the elements and to hostile attack. And finally, given the nuclear industry’s track record of bringing in plants well over budget and decades late, the proposed programme is not going to be realised until 2060 at the earliest. Why on earth are we contemplating it?

John French, Brockweir, Gloucestershire