Madam, - Nick Armstrong (August 12th) opposes nuclear power because, he says, waste disposal is a problem. It isn't. The total volume of high-level waste that would be produced for one person for his entire life if all his energy needs were met by nuclear power is the size of a bar of soap.
The only problem with waste disposal is the anti-nuclear brigade campaign to stop it, no matter how it is done or where it is put.
By far the worst accident in 50 years' use of nuclear power for energy generation was Chernobyl; and according to the World Health Organisation that killed fewer than 40 people. There is no evidence of any further deaths at all. The use of coal has led to over 100,000 deaths in the same time from mining alone. Many people incorrectly think thousands were killed by the Chernobyl accident, but that is an urban myth.
If Chernobyl is as bad as it gets - and of course it was more than a consequence of the failed communist system than of any technical failure, people should be less afraid of a nuclear power "catastrophe".
Mr Armstrong mentions solar, wind, wave, tidal and biomass energy as solutions, but the first three also need an alternative plant that generates energy from some other source when there is no sun, no wind or few waves. There is a fundamental flaw in all these methods. Tidal energy is feasible in only a very few select locations around the world. Biomass is hugely expensive. Energy sources that will never supply more than a small amount of very expensive power do not solve anything.
France generates 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power. Does it cause a problem for the French? No. We should do the same - and at the same time help to solve the global warming problem. The only actual problem is the Luddites. - Yours, etc.,
BILL GROGAN,
Wilton,
Cork.