How depressing that the majority of your respondents to The Question (NCE last week) 'Where do you think our energy should come from?' put nuclear power at or near the top of their list.
I thought that the debate on the true cost of nuclear power had been resolved. One correspondent stated that gas will run out (by cost) or limitation of supply by 2050.
Nuclear has never been cost effective and never will be when research and decommissioning costs are taken into account. If renewables had been funded at £1M per day or whatever the average figure ends up at for nuclear, then we would have some pretty spectacular sustainable energy solutions by now but, of course, the reason for the disproportionate level of investment was nothing to do with power and all to do with weapons.
We cannot switch to renewables overnight, but let's not fall into the trap that one of your contributors does of assuming that those opposed to nuclear can be written off as the 'environmentalist lobby'.
We are engineers and scientists who look at the broader picture, who see that nuclear power is not a safe, sustainable means of providing our long term energy needs.
Also depressing is that none of the responses to your question mentioned energy savings. As engineers, we should be at the forefront of this drive.
Andrew Wood Andrewwood. eng@ btinternet. com