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

Power politics

Letters

I read your 'Nuclear' comment and almost despaired. There is a choice to be made between an ever increasing dependency on gas from various unstable and undemocratic states to the East and creating a core generating capacity in this country that is completely under UK control.

To me there can be no doubt of the sensible option. It would include locally sourced gas for as long as possible, probably coal because we have it and the 'clean technology' is available, and a very considerable proportion of nuclear because there are no other reliable alternatives, except possibly tidal and biomass in the medium to long term.

Energy saving is also essential, but very difficult and expensive in any property more than 50 or 60 years old - and I speak from experience.

The choice is, therefore, pretty stark. Risk the consequences of possible political upheaval in the East of Europe compared to new nuclear technology at home.

SF Smith (M), birgitsmith @whsmithnet. co. uk

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.