From Carl Reynolds
Tam Dalyell implies that because spent nuclear fuel can be stored for 50 years that this somehow gives the green light for new nuclear power stations in Britain (17 August, p 58). How does he propose we safely store the waste from these stations for the following 250,000 years? Given that civilisation has been around for only a few thousand years, the nuclear industry must be employing some pretty good soothsayers.
The ground is being prepared for fresh building in the nuclear industry. I suspect there are a number of factors behind this: the unfounded assertion that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar cannot provide uninterrupted power supply; a refusal to invest the same resources in renewables and the emerging hydrogen economies as we put into the subsidies for nuclear power; to bail out an already uneconomic industry; and to build on the myth that this is the only practical way to further reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
If electricity generated from renewable sources is used to produce hydrogen, as Iceland seems able to do, then both the CO2 issue and the issue of uninterrupted supply can be solved.
London
