I WOULD like to respond to Tom Cousins' letter 'Drop Nuclear' which was a response to my letter 'Nuclear Realities' to Robin Larkham's letter.

In the first part of his letter he points out, quite correctly, that if an accident occurred at a nuclear facility similar to the accidents at Chernobyl or Fukushima, then £300 million in indemnity cover is insufficient. Unfortunately, I think he has misunderstood the position. The fact is, as I described in my letter of 23 March, that a nuclear operator is required to have £300 million indemnity cover and the Government tops this up with 'infinite' cover. In case Mr Cousins wants to argue that this proves how dangerous nuclear power is, this situation also exists for several other 'conventional' undertakings.

He then asks if 'we are still paying for Chernobyl contaminated Yorkshire Dales sheep'. In the aftermath of Chernobyl, farms in Wales, Cumbria, Scotland and Northern Ireland had restrictions put on animal movement. None in Yorkshire. And all restrictions have been lifted.

Mr Cousins then asks if the cost of maintaining nuclear waste containment sites is more than the annual £2 billion subsidy given to windmills and solar power. There have been several Freedom of Information requests on this, but it appears that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority do not publish the individual costings as separate from decommissioning activities. Before Tom Cousins tells us that is unsatisfactory, I would agree with him. However, it is possible to say that the cost of storing low level waste is £36m annually. Assuming the cost of storage at Sellafield of high level waste and on sites of intermediate level waste is 5 per cent of running costs, which is probably very pessimistic, the cost of storage of HLW and ILW looks to be about £150M. A total of less than £200m: 10 per cent of the 'green' subsidy.

Mr Cousins then asks how long it will take to decommission a nuclear site, as if this is a great state secret. The answer comes from the same document as the figures above: published by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, it is in the public domain. And the answer is about 10-15 years work after shutdown, no more work for about 80 years where the radioactivity is left to decay – a period known as care and maintenance – and then two to three years to knock it flat. The care and maintenance period is so that demolition can be done by conventional rather than remote equipment. And again, before it is claimed that this shows how dangerous nuclear is with some isotopes having very long half lives: well they have, but some materials used daily such as cadmium and mercury are dangerous forever.

Tom Cousins asks a very interesting question at the end of his letter: why do politicians oppose nuclear when in opposition but support it when in power? I suggest it is because there are so many groups and individuals putting around scare stories that there are no votes in nuclear if you want to get into power, but when in power politicians realise how serious the situation with regard to the supply of electricity is.

RWE has this week pulled out of building stations at Oldbury and Anglesey for political rather than safety reasons. The government has been criticised from every side for having an energy policy that is in tatters. Hose pipe bans are coming in: how long before we have regular power cuts?

– Herbie Renfield, Longhope.