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

Readers right

Letters

That there should be such debate among the readership regarding our editor's point of view on future energy supply is to be celebrated. One can imagine similar debates elsewhere, especially between No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street.

One of the arguments central to debate is the Royal Academy of Engineering's claim that nuclear electricity is again a cheap form of energy, comparable now to electricity produced from gas - previously it was to be 'too cheap to meter'.

Here lies the kernel of the debate between Blair and Brown: one will argue we need it and the other, justifiably, that he does not need to pay for it. The result will be, if the claims by the RAE have any substance (which many Academicians who have read the report doubt) that banks will be asked to back the venture.

If they were to be persuaded, it won't just be the greens who desert those banks - as they boycotted Shell over the Brent Spar fi asco and cost the company 'millions of dollars' - but also many of their more prudent investors. You see, in a free economy, democracy works Mark Whitby, FREng, director, Whitbybird, 60 Newman Street London W1T 3DA

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.