The issue of nuclear power has only come back on the agenda because of lack or true environmental commitment and foresight of the looming energy crisis over the next 40 years. Yes, nuclear is "green" and efficient, but the risks and long-term negative effects are certainly prohibitive. The reason we need nuclear energy is because centralised energy production is so unbelievably inefficient. Why transport energy across the country when you could generate energy on every rooftop from renewables? The lack of efficiency is a question of market forces, so create incentive for the micro-industry and it certainly will be efficient over the next 25 years. We could run the country from home before the first new nuclear plant is even built, it just needs real commitment from a forward thinking group thinking in the long-term, so no surprise that government couldn't manage it. Tom Morrod, London

"The nuclear debate must be seen for what it is - a debate about electricity, which accounts for only 18 per cent of total energy consumed." So says Joan Ruddock, and this claim is typical of the sloppy thinking surrounding Nuclear energy. It is not the case that nuclear energy concerns only electricity as we understand it today. If we wish to move to a hydrogen-based economy, which is the only practical way to replace oil and reduce carbon emissions, then electricity will have a crucial role to play in hydrogen generation and its use will soar well above the current 18%. In other words electricity stops being just what you use to run your lights and stoves, and instead becomes the basic feedstock to generate all other forms of energy. Jon Livesey, Sunnyvale, CA, USA

Certainly, for the immediate future, a new generation of nuclear power plants is the only viable alternative to having our energy flow in the hands of middle Eastern nations living in a mediaeval time-warp or ex-communist leaders desperate to recover some of the power they had under their former totalitarian political systems. Is it really too much to ask that national leaders co-operate on developing efficient renewable energy sources? In 1961 John Kennedy, driven only be the shame of America being beaten into space by the USSR, instituted a program which put men on the moon (and recovered them) in less than 9 years. This was done by the US alone. Imagine what might be achieved if Bush, Blair, Chirac, Merkel and the other leaders of the scientifically advanced western world put the same amount of effort into the far more important field of sustainable energy. Can no leader think above their own parochial nationalism? Bob Finbow, Haverhill, Suffolk

So, according to David Leslie of Crieff [see below], "the people needed to run and decommission them are the same people running and decommissioning (quite safely) the current nuclear power stations". This will be the reason that there is a new scare about radioactive particles on one beach or another around Dounreay every other month. Wake up and get real. You are right on one point, wind farms would improve the look of Dundee. Must be nice to live in the nimby paradise of Crieff. Derek Sinclair, Dundee

Nice argument put by Labour MP Joan Ruddock in The Times today. However, a few small points in response which she may wish to consider. Currently, she points out that nuclear power only accounts for 18% of total UK electricity consumption. She then argues that the way ahead is to promote energy efficiency and not to build more nuclear reactors. Well - how about doing both? Promote energy efficiency with new green initiatives and develop new nuclear power stations. Obviously that will reduce electricity consumption proportionately and thus increase nuclear power's contribution as a percentage. Most importantly it will also ensure that the UK won't have to import other (CO2 producing) electricity generating alternatives or destroy the remaining countryside with wind farms. Result: UK balance of payments improved, security of supply ensured, global warming reduced and short-sighted, anti-nuclear scaremongers out of office. Michael Graham, Penang, Malaysia

I think the real question is: "do we need an alternative form of power?" I think we do, of course, but I strongly oppose any use of nuclear power to substitute the current power sources. Man often lacks sense of responsibility when other interests (power and money) are in play: I fear something like Chernobyl might happen again, despite modern nuclear site's being safer than in the past. It is in man's nature to make mistakes, and I don't think we can afford mistakes when dealing with nuclear power. I wonder why governments do not invest in other power sources, such as wind or sun power. Of course there are economic and political reasons for this choice. I find it is a shameful, anti-democratic and irresponsible attitude which common people (consumers) must have the courage to denounce. Roberta Battaglia, Venice, Italy

I understand that procurement of the raw materials for nuclear power generation require the use of fossil energy - mostly oil. I believe that, eventually, more energy will be required in this process than can be gained from nuclear power generation. Where are the figures to be found to resolve this point? John Burgoine, Welshpool

If there is any basis to the "peak oil" hypothesis then in 10 years time the world economy could be in tailspin, which will make a nonsense of any of the claimed security and economic benefits of nuclear power. By the time the new reactors come on stream we will have depleted available high grade ores and will have to access much poorer sources rubbishing any claims about cost, security of supply and carbon efficiency. David Thomas, Beaumaris

As Joan Ruddock says, this debate is about electricity which acccounts for only 18 per cent of energy used in the UK. If the human energy and financial resources put into nuclear are put in to renewables, surely our needs could be met? The big problem is storage for peak demands. Reservoirs in higher ground? Hydrogen from water? Gas from biomass? Michael Cook, Exeter

A mix of power sources is required with wind, tidal and photo electric all playing their part. Nuclear power is a cleaner power in terms of CO2 emissions than coal or gas, and nuclear radiation hazards will be significantly reduced by technical improvements since the Magnox days. Nuclear waste disposal has to be resolved but there are methods although expensive. Simpler and cheaper decommissioning can be built in with new technology so that we do not have to burden future generations with the sort of costs that we are experiencing at present. We have the technology so let us use it to secure our future power needs. Nicholas Platt, Newtown, Powys