Nu-clear, a little clearer

The Times allows a soft rebuttal of Rev Prof Gerard McGreevy's nuclear proposal. There remains however, no room for criticism of the purpose of his article. Balancing business against sustainability is difficult enough without the media taking sides, which they (seemingly) are unable to curb.


Madam, - As a young engineer I worked for a supplier of hardware for the nuclear industry and was involved in the design of equipment for use in nuclear reactors. As a result I would have few worries about the safe operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations - and they do seem like a good solution to ever growing power needs.

However, now retired, I worry about the legacy I am leaving my grandchildren in the form of spent fuel and other nuclear waste.

Rev Prof Gerard McGreevy (May 24th) regards the case against nuclear power as quite weak, but I think we have not been sufficiently reassured about how nuclear waste and decommissioned stations - radioactive for many, many more generations - can be safely stored or disposed of. Also, the cost of decommissioning needs to be factored into the cost of construction and maintenance.

I would rather see more expenditure on research and development of other renewable energy sources, especially tidal and wave energy, an option sorely ignored. - Yours, etc,

DAVID J. WALSH, Delgany, Co Wicklow.

The Irish Times