ÖйúAƬ

The article by Godfrey Boyle ("Nukes not necessary", Soapbox, June 10) paints an unrealistic picture of what Britain could achieve by copying Germany in utilising wind power. A study by the Association of German Power Plant Operatives showed that the implication of following such policies would mean the county's hoped-for 40 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions would be unattainable.

The true cost of wind power must not be dismissed lightly. It is double the cost of oil or nuclear power and requires a subsidy of about 6 cents/kWh. It does not matter that "the additional costs are added to the electricity bills, not paid for by taxpayers". It does matter that there are unnecessary additional costs that have to be covered somehow.

Approximately 6,000 mega-watts of electricity will be lost by 2010 if the plans for closing down obsolescent nuclear power plants are implemented. It has been suggested that this reduction in total power output could be made up for by building wind power generators. This would require at least 3,000 wind turbines to be installed at an average rate of one a day until 2010.

Finally, if "Germany is the living refutation of the argument that we need nuclear power to combat climate change", why are the Germans having increasing doubts about their government's policy to phase out nuclear power?

J. A. Simmons.
Emeritus professor of radiation biophysics Westminster University.