Madam, It was interesting to read the article by Judy Hamilton and the subsequent letter from Ralph Wadge. I can sympathise with Ms Hamilton's comments, even though some may wrongly accuse her of nimbyism, and accept Mr Wadge's views to a degree ... although "storage of spare electricity" raised an eyebrow. Most people are aware that decision time is fast approaching for the UK's government as our current nuclear and coal-fired power stations age and dependence on gas grows. Coal is "dirty" and gas is not much cleaner. Gas has the added disadvantage of being dependant on supplies from abroad – expensive and subject to being turned off at the will of the supplying nation.

So what are the alternatives? Wind, wave, solar, geothermal and nuclear?

Wind powered generators are clean but not cheap and they only generate well under ideal conditions. Large numbers of wind turbines are needed and, if we are honest, they are an eyesore. Even off shore wind farms are not pretty and can be hazardous to small boats and birds.Wave power is good. It is mainly out of sight and there are a lot of waves out there! Unfortunately although the theory is simple, the actual technology is quite demanding and, as Mr Wadge points out, there are few sites around the UK suitable for such installations.

Solar power is not currently a serious option – we have all seen the huge arrays on rooftops around town and they produce little more power than to supply that building ... when it is light! Geothermal power is a technology that I personally feel has not been taken seriously enough. Again the theory is quite simple and the actual technology is not too demanding. It is clean and could provide a continuous source of relatively cheap electricity.

Finally we get to nuclear power. May I remind you that we were the first country in the world to build a commercial nuclear power station – now we are hesitant to build new ones. Why? Many will question safety but, in fact, the industry's safety record is good compared to others. Many will quote Chernobyl and the accident in Japan. Chernobyl was poorly designed and poorly maintained. Similar stations have been closed down and I am sure the Russians will be more careful in future. The Japanese plant was well designed and well run – but it was in the wrong place! Perhaps I should also mention the Three Mile Island incident in America but, although serious, no-one was killed and there was no released contamination.

A recent poll showed that the British public are becoming more favorably inclined towards nuclear power as a viable alternative although there are continuing concerns about waste and possible terrorist attacks. The same poll showed that wind turbines were becoming less popular – mainly because they are not pretty and not very efficient. It is of interest that a large percentage of the public seem unaware of the relatively high output of "greenhouse gases" from gas fired power stations or the insecurity of supplies. I could say much more but enough is enough. I did work in the generation industry and I do believe that nuclear power is the answer but my comments are strictly personal. If they get a few hackles hackling then great – let us keep the public debate going.

Michael Field, Ross