16th December 2005

Craig Crompton suggests that nuclear power is 'the only option' but while he makes some useful points his analysis is mistaken (letters, SNJ 14/12/05).

Mr Crompton is right that wind turbines don't provide energy all the time but neither is nuclear as reliable as implied by his letter. Oldbury for example regularly shuts for 2 months each year and has many unscheduled shut downs including reactor one for a year due to problems that many consider have not been resolved satisfactorily.

Nuclear power is not CO2 neutral and Mr Crompton rightly points out wind turbines also involve CO2 emissions. However to generate electricity from uranium requires such a complex chain of industrial processes that produces roughly five times more emissions per unit of energy generated than renewables. New build would also take at least 10 years and make no contribution to short term CO2 targets.

Furthermore while nuclear produces 20% of our electricity, it only accounts for 5% of our overall energy needs. So unless massively expanded, nuclear would only prevent around 3% increase in emissions through to 2020 and this is dwarfed by projected increase in vehicle emissions in the same period.

No one is suggesting on-land wind turbines are the only alternative but a mix with off-shore, solar, biomass along with energy efficiency measures has been shown to be entirely possible and cheaper. This would include enforcing motorway speed limits, improving building insulation and making better use of central heating controls. This is surely better that than radioactive emissions, the potential for accidents like Buncefield, the threat of terrorist attack and the dangerous and costly storage of radioactive waste for thousands of years.

Martin Whiteside
Lypiatt, Stroud, GL6 7LU
Stroud District Green party