I take issue with Amanda Levete鈥檚 position on nuclear power (8 February, pages 30-31).

She seems to be saying that a nuclear solution is an essential interim measure because there is no certainty about the future of the alternatives to fossil fuel.

I agree that nuclear has a part to play in tackling global warming, but let鈥檚 not kid ourselves that it has a long-term future (even putting aside the environmental and international security problems). Uranium, the fuel of the reactors, is a finite resource. At best, we only have 30 years of cheap supply.

She also appears to have no faith in the scientists who are trying to achieve breakthroughs with low and zero-carbon technologies. Why does she adopt this position when she has faith in the same scientists at CERN achieving a less likely breakthrough in nuclear fusion 鈥� the holy grail of power production?

The UK government鈥檚 decision not to subsidise the construction of plants is a relief, but it needs to go a step further and support research and development in burgeoning renewable technologies. Then we will see which technology does best. It will also be interesting to see how 鈥渋conic鈥� any new reactors will be, especially at a time when the public鈥檚 awareness of whole planet living has just started to take off.

I suggest you should give readers the facts and not provide comforting words for those who haven鈥檛 yet written their corporate social responsibility statement. In today鈥檚 climate, which do you think the majority of people would vote for? A large tidal barrier or the next Sizewell?

David Reynolds, sustainability consultant

Topics