Do opponents of nuclear power ignore the facts, or are they just ignorant?

Ian Hendry (Letters, 21 January) claims that electricity generated from nuclear energy is not "carbon-neutral" because of all the emitted by processes other than actual generation. 

In fact, analysis of the full cycle, including all those matters listed by Mr Hendry, shows that the overall emission per kilowatt-hour (about 5g) is much lower than that from stations burning fossil fuels (about 70 times less than for gas and 177 times less than for coal). It is about the same amount as from wind generation.

Moreover, nuclear generation is more than "carbon-neutral", a term I would apply only to generation from burning biomass. Because it emits hardly any, nuclear power is actually "carbon-negative".

On the same topic, Bruce Skivington (Letters, 21 January) is wrong about uranium. It can be found in Scotland, in Orkney in particular. However, with adequate supplies from friendly countries such as Australia, Canada, the United States and South Africa, we do not need to mine it here (we can also extract it from "used fuel" from our own power stations).

In 2007, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimated that "recoverable reserves" of uranium globally were about 4.74 million tonnes, well over 100 years' supply at the then current rate of consumption. In addition, new sources are now being explored. It is unlikely that civilisation will ever run out of uranium; the ultimate source is the oceans.

Steuart Campbell

Dovecot Loan

Edinburgh