THIS is in reply S. T. Anderson's letter (Review, July 15).  While I accept some of the points he makes about solar power alone being inadequate, it should be pointed out that it would be much more widely available now if the government had supported it financially instead of wasting money subsidising nuclear power. 

Why wasting? 

To begin with, according to the website, http://www.noneedfornuclear">www.noneedfornuclear. org.uk, nuclear power is frequently described as being a low-carbon source of energy, but is this really the case?  While the process by which energy is extracted from the nuclear reactors does not directly release carbon (unlike burning coal for instance) , nuclear power emits far more greenhouse gases throughout its lifetime than other [safer] technologies, which are renewable.

Secondly,  the need for more energy may be less than anticipated due to  increased efficiency in use and  better insulated homes.  In any case, the UK is ideally located to exploit renewable resources.  The European Energy Agency (2009) have concluded that the cost-effective wind energy potential in Europe in seven times that of predicted energy demand. Seven times!  And that's just wind energy.  In the UK we also have access to wave, tidal, hydro-electric, biomass and even solar power.  And as the market for these technologies develops, products are getting better and cheaper.

Thirdly, the CEO of Eon (who are amongst those who would be building the plants) thinks that the cost of building (the 10 proposed) has been under-estimated by £20 billion.  No nuclear power stations have ever been built in the UK without public subsidy.  This is because the cost of disposing of radioactive waste is prohibitively high, and so, unless the energy companies receive help with these costs, they cannot afford to invest in new power stations.

The coalition government's claim that there will be "no public subsidy" for any future nuclear power seems unlikely to be validated.  Furthermore, according to two different studies, published by two different government departments, the cost of electricity from nuclear is more expensive than the cost of electricity from renewables.  So, in a non-nuclear scenario, your fuel bills will be cheaper too.

More details and references about the above points can be found on the website quoted.

I would like to add a fourth consideration with regard to uranium being non-renewable.  In fact the richest mines have already been exploited so it is a matter of extracting a few grams of uranium from several tons of rock by workers who are putting their own health at risk.  If the whole world took the nuclear path for energy, uranium sources would be virtually exhausted by 2050.

– Alison Rennie, St Whites Road, Cinderford.