From Lauri Suoranta
Michael Brooks’s article on nuclear power was ridiculously biased and illogical (22 April, p 33). First, nuclear power is a real alternative to current renewable energy sources, so it has the same right to public subsidies. Secondly, the graphs were chosen to promote renewables. Natural gas is categorised as a “low-carbon energy source” in order to weaken the claims of nuclear power.
While Brooks cites the Royal Academy of Engineering on the cost of several energy sources, he doesn’t mention that the RAE predicts nuclear power to cost just over 2 pence per kilowatt-hour with plant decomissioning costs included. Clearly, the article was never meant to give anything near a balanced view of the subject.
From Larry Hughes
Achieving energy security with intermittent renewables, notably wind, requires some form of rapid-response back-up energy source, typically hydroelectricity or natural gas-fired turbines. To espouse renewables without explaining how the back-up will be achieved does little to further the cause of renewable energy. This is especially true in countries such as the UK, where natural gas production is unable to meet demand. In the UK, North Sea natural gas peaked in 2000, and demand is once again exceeding production. With the decline in North Sea supply, the UK will be forced to import more natural gas.
Advertisement
Russia’s retaliatory actions against Ukraine in January show how difficult it is for a country to achieve energy security using imported energy. If renewables are to make a difference, it will be necessary to develop technologies and policies that minimise reliance on non-indigenous energy sources.
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Espoo, Finland
