I agree with Nick Platt that the judiciary should have no jurisdiction over whether we have nuclear power.
Even this disreputable government can and should take the decision and if the public do not like it then vote them out at the next election.
I am actually in favour of nuclear power rather than the half baked crackpot schemes put forward by Greenpeace

Thomas Ralphs, Leigh, Lancashire

It is time that the Green lobby realised that of all the non renewables, Nuclear power is the cleanest and that the safety and disposal of waste can be sorted with the will to do it. Un fortunately the renewables cannot produce enough power for the foreseeable future and therefore we will require some carbon neutral generators. Nuclear power is the answer and it is time now that the decision has to be made.
Surely the decision is for the people as represented by our members of parliament and not the judiciary

Nick Platt, Newtown, Powys

Alastair Darling and Blair still talk of building nuclear power stations to meet an energy gap in 2020. In practical terms, one or two could be built by then.

But closing of existing nuclear stations and also some old coal-fired stations is happening much sooner. The power supply gap hits in about 2014.

The industry knows this and should not let the Labour government quite irresponsibly ignore it.

New fossil fuel stations would run up against our CO2 target. What can come soon enought to fill the "gap" ? Waste combustion is minor. Biomass plant can contribute in part. But energy from the sea is the major option, with tidal current turbines and wave power devices in significant numbers from 2010 (www.marinet.org.uk) additional to off-shore wind power. Schemes like the mega tidal barrage on the Severn, however, cannot meet the 2014 el-gap.

Max Wallis, Cardiff, Wales UK

And a spokesman for British Energy said: “We’re very disappointed in today’s ruling although this must not detract from the fact that the country is facing a forthcoming and very serious energy gap.”

I believe you and not the politicians. You are on the target. The politicians for votes promise us many moons and stars thrown in as a bonus. The end result. We have no energy to fight back.

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

All that has happened is that we shall have to wait even longer to ensure our power supplies are adequate. Neither the Government (through inadequate consultation) nor Greenpeace (believing wind etc: power is the real answer-peak demand is on hot and cold windless days, so the capital cost of 2 parallel systems will make us a very uncompetitive country), have done us any favours.
Just get on with it.

James, Sevenoaks, England

When will the environmental crackpots realise that 'alternative energy' is not a viable alternative?

This is one issue that the P.M. must lead on. If he leaves us with nothing else, this could perhaps be part of a worthwhile legacy.

stuart turner, bristol,

Am I alone in worrying at the increasing role of the judiciary in our policy making process. We live in a parliamentary democracy and judges are unaccountable. Whatever my views on the issue, we elect governments to govern and hold them to account. Had they not consulted at all, would a judge have had any purchase in the matter? And where is Parliament in all this?

John Barnes, Etchingham, UK

I cannot understand the huge U-turn that most Labour policiticians have made when their position from the 80s is taken into account - and that was based on what to do with nuclear waste.

Funny how tthat now hey have all jumped on the low-carbon band-wagon, that the nuclear waste issue has now been brushed under the carpet.

I find it unsettling as well that on the one hand we are being told that we are now at a greater risk of terrorist attack and then on the other that we are to greatly expand the number of nuclear reactors in the country, thus providing far more targets.

Russell Bonser, Moseley, Birmingham,

Good for you Mr. Minister. Nuclear is the only way as far as we can see. We live on our boat and are more or less self sufficient - solar panels. But, no one else is on land.

Jennifer J, RoatanHonduras,

To allow Greenpeace or any similar anti-develoment lobby group to dictate your country's energy policy through a Court of Law spells disaster.

The ruling of a single Judge will no doubt be appealed as he ,as Judges in Ayustralia often do, may be expressing a personal view couched within his findings.

Governments,in my opinion, are voted in to run the country not to seek popularity with the electorate.Who in the United Kingdom needed nuclear energy explained to them again?

Hopefully the Government does carry on with it's plans to increase nuclear energy and rejects Sllivan's findings.

grant watt, glenning valley, NSW Australia

Sir, in response to the Court’s ruling on the public consultation on nuclear power Tony Blair stated (BBC radio 4) “It will affect the process of consultation but it won’t affect policy”. What then is the point of public consultation? If the policy has already been formed then the consultation is a mockery. This arrogance and contempt for public opinion is the hallmark of this government and Blair in particular.

Graham Rock, Taunton, Somerset

Congratulations! It will be nice when a similar court rule will demand a full review of the lacking scíentific basis relating to the the "Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis". There is 50 times more water vapour in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
The variations of "Greenhouse Gases" are mostly caused by water vapour gas variations and these do not depend on humans. There is no way to implement a proper future energy policy in England or EU until judges are investigation false claims on scientific basis by IPCC.

Hans Jelbring , Stockholm, Sweden