The managing director of Sizewell C, Julia Pyke states her reasons for investing in nuclear power. What do you think? (Picture: CHRIS RADBURN/AFP via Getty)
As wildfires rage across Europe, it’s becoming impossible to ignore the impact of climate change on the environment.
The managing director of Sizewell C has written to MetroTalk to say why she thinks nuclear power needs to part of that conversation.
As one reader points out, France invested in nuclear power and they enjoy cheap electricity as a result. Meanwhile the cost of energy in the UK is only going up.
What do you think?
‘Nuclear has to be part of the energy mix’
In response to Martin Allen and Rob Slater who say nuclear power is not the answer to our clean energy needs (MetroTalk, Thu).
Wildfires and high temperatures in parts of Europe this month are forcing us once again to confront the alarming impacts of climate change.
That’s why we urgently need to get on and build nuclear power stations like Sizewell C alongside the Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and wind farms that will help to reduce our use of fossil fuels.
Some days this month more than 45 per cent of our electricity has been powered by gas. That’s too much if, as a country, we want to continue our great track record in reducing carbon emissions.
Nuclear energy allows us to generate a lot of clean electricity from a very small land footprint.
Yes, the power stations take time to build but once they are there, they operate for many decades providing ‘always-on’ electricity which doesn’t depend on the weather.
Don’t forget, we are moving into an electric age and the demand for low carbon power is likely to quadruple between now and 2050.
Nuclear has to be part of the energy mix if we want to meet that demand, strengthen our energy security and keep costs to consumers under control.
Julia Pyke, Joint Managing Director, Sizewell C
METRO TALK – HAVE YOUR SAY
Let us know what you think…
Start a text with VIEWS followed by your comment, name and where you live to 65700. Standard network charge applies. Or email [email protected] Helpline for Views, Rush-Hour Crush and Good Deed Feed: 020 3615 0600.
Remember, you are more likely to be published if you provide your name and location with your
Full T&Cs here. Metro.co.uk is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Comments may be edited for reasons of legality, clarity or space.
Rob Slater is right, we should have been building more nuclear power stations. But the reason we didn’t?
For years the green lobby objected.
France had no such compunctions and now enjoys cheap green energy with little reliance on other countries.
They even export their energy to us. On another point, I did chuckle when I read Martin Allen’s comment that Sizewell C would devastate ‘the local area of natural beauty’.
Presumably thousands of wind turbines, hundreds of feet high across our countryside, adds to natural beauty. John Daniels, Redhill
Would you rather live next to a nuclear power plant or in distance of a windfarm (Picture: Christopher Furlong/Getty)
The purpose of ULEZ wasn’t to address climate change – it was to improve air
It is rather disingenuous of Dave Degen (MetroTalk, Wed) to link opposition to ULEZ with the fires burning in Rhodes.
The purpose of ULEZ is, officially at least, to improve air quality in London, not to combat climate change.
Cleaner air is healthier, no doubt, but my heart goes out to several pensioner friends who generally use public transport, but occasionally need cars for some short journeys when there is no practical alternative.
Their vehicles are in good condition, as they are used little, but were made before the ULEZ cut-off date, even though they may be no dirtier than some made later.
Replacing a little-used car may be much worse for the environment than keeping it.
Its occasional use has negligible impact, while the production of a new car involves considerable emissions due to the extraction and processing of the materials required. Bernard Winchester, South Norwood
Don’t use ULEZ as an excuse – use public transport as an alternative
Michael (MetroTalk, Wed) says many old people will not be visited due to friends and family driving polluting cars and being unable to afford the ULEZ charge.
Has Michael not heard of trains? The poorest in this country do not drive cars, they use public transport. Stop making excuses in order to continue poisoning our lungs – driving is a privilege not a right. Jo, Hackney
Did you choose to not drive? What were your reasons? (Picture: Getty)
‘There’s not enough staff – that’s why we’re using ticket machines’
In seeking to justify the proposed closure of station ticket offices, the train companies tell us that only 12 per cent of tickets are sold that way.
They have caused this deliberately, by cutting down on ticket office staff so that people are forced to use machines or go online.
I went to Paddington station and wanted to buy a ticket at the office but the queue stretched out of the office and across the concourse. I had to use the machine instead. Keiran Proffer, London
‘We need proportional representation and here’s why…’
I couldn’t agree more with Adam (MetroTalk, Thu) from Manchester that we need proportional representation.
Opponents of PR often claim that single-party governments are better than coalitions, but the events of the past few years have surely disproved that argument.
Under first past the post, the different factions within each party tend to work against each other, each believing that their particular ideology is what their party needs to adopt to win and retain power.
Under PR, we would have a parliament that better reflected the diversity of views within the UK and parties would have to work together to achieve a consensus, as happens in many countries that use PR.
Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens may disagree on some specific policies but they share similar values and have more in common than what divides them.
Alan Yearsley, Sheffield
One reader wishes some golf fans would ‘get in the hole’
Are there things that sport fans do that annoys you? (Picture: Getty)
I always enjoy the golf on the TV especially the British Open last week. Nowadays, however, I watch it with the sound turned off because of the mindless few fans who shout ‘get in the hole’ even when the player is not on the green.
They seem to think they can tell the golf ball what to do and it will obey their command.
May I suggest that there would be a better chance of getting their head in the hole due to a lack of brain cells. What do other golf fans think? Ken, Roslin
MORE : Is it worth selling my car ahead of the London ULEZ expansion? Find out ahead of August 2023 plans
MORE : Chilling map shows trail of wildfire devastation across southern Europe
MORE : Rail companies delay plan to shut almost every ticket office
‘Don’t forget, we’re moving into an electric age.’
