Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Fossil fools

Letters

The interesting news item on the Cambridge project linking photovoltaic energy and hydrogen (NCE last week) needed some estimate of cost.

It also needed an explanation of how demand will be balanced over summer and winter, bearing in mind the 10:1 variation in supply one might expect.

The item was also spoilt by an irrational swipe at nuclear power. As long as fossil fuels make up the balance of our energy demand, any reduction in nuclear power means CO2 emissions and global warming will be worse than necessary, and this consequence must be faced.

Personally, I do not understand the fashionable prejudice against nuclear. I would be happier living adjacent to a nuclear power station than an oil refinery, and have enough confidence in my fellow engineers to feel safer living above a nuclear waste store than above the granite in Cornwall.

Richard Balmer (M), 79 Links Drive, Solihull, B91 2DJ

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.