Tim Gregory (Can we fear the nuclear power? 6 July) Makes a series of accounts that do not compete with recent evidence about moving zero-carbon energy. Two stands.
The first is that the world needs more energy. Poor countries will actually do. But cleaning the cleaning involves moving more efficient technologies, such as electric vehicles and heat pumps. Many studies, including by the intergovernmental climate change panelShow that it can be able to make the rich nations end up using their energy use while improving living standards. The whole world can contain Western life styles and still use less energy.
The second mistake is to argue that the power of air and solar cannot prevent a reliable electric grid. A generalized LOOKING BY ROYAL SOCIETY It shows that a system based on these resources with some long-term storage is not only possible, but is cheaper than a system of any level of nuclear power. Nuclear power is an expensive disruption from building an efficient and convertible system.
Nick Eyre
Enertitus Professor of Climate Strength and Policy, Oxford University
Your author, in his enthusiasm to highlight the cheap cost to build new nuclear plants, failed to include frequent costs of nuclear plants at the end of their nuclear work. Should include it in any comparison of costs.
He also failed to discuss problems with many hazardous nuclear nuclear waste and weather accidents – like tsunamis attacks radioactive in Japan – and potential terror attacks.
Nuclear may not cause garbage at atmospheric atmosphere but makes it more toxic radioactive waste that remains danger of hundreds of thousands of years. A problem that threatens health in all life.
He mentioned that VIRGIN Makes a deep grave grave for nuclear waste, and the possibility of geological activity and trouble shown in time tests – and it is not easily visible on the Finland site.
Kathleen askew
Hayling Island, Hampshire
