Readers letters

Soundbites: coal-fired power stations

Coal-fired power station
Coal-fired power station

The government plans to close all coal-fired power stations by 2025. Is this an environmentally enlightened move? Or will it risk dangerous energy gaps?

Whatever the government plans on anything to do with engineering, I work on the basis that since hardly any of them have any science or engineering qualifications beyond GCSE level, whatever policy they come up with will be flawed. Then they will interfere and make things worse. So I would go with the energy gaps scenario. 

Geoff Buck, Newton Abbot, Devon

The risks are not just energy gaps, but also the stability of the grid. Stability is reduced by having a lot of non-synchronous plant on the bars, such as solar and wind power – the situation being exacerbated by its intermittency. We need an holistic engineering solution to the UK’s energy future, not a political one. 

Andy Brown, Gloucester

It’s taking a long time to get the nuclear power stations online that at one time were expected to be generating by the end of 2017. So far, we don’t even have one station under construction. The prudent approach would be to wait until we’re a lot closer to having the replacement capacity available before taking such a drastic decision. 

Brian Rowney, Astley, Manchester

Burning non-renewables is inherently non-sustainable. I’m not sure whether shutting down the coal-fired power stations is commercially sensible, but I am sure that it’s morally correct. 

Peter Hewson, Eye, Suffolk

Of more concern to me are the disproportionate number of expensive, undependable windfarms we have invested in. The experts say we need a sensible energy mix of fossil, nuclear and renewable power, and I have no reason to doubt them. I think we need more nuclear power – both green and reliable. 

Alastair Miles, Yate, South Gloucestershire

It is national suicide to commit to closing power station capacity before suitable replacement baseload – that is, nuclear – stations are actually online, when we are already receiving warnings that we have a growing risk of power cuts if we get a particularly severe winter. Moving to gas simply changes from one increasingly scarce carbon source to another 

Len Stanway, Basildon, Essex

There doesn’t seem any willingness to build anything at the moment, even though there is great enthusiasm for closing the old. Companies won’t invest in infrastructure, while the energy policy changes with the wind. The priority should be security of supply before the environment.

Richard Goodfellow, Newcastle

They will be replaced by gas-fired versions which produce half the carbon dioxide, so this is a step in the right direction and will provide a stopgap. Renewables are now very cheap at producing electrical energy. I could buy a solar power system from IKEA and produce energy for 25 years at 7p per kWh, which is less than the cost of new nuclear at 9.25p. 

Stuart Kirby, Derby

The UK’s contribution to the world’s CO2 production is too small to be noticed, so it would make no environmental sense at all. Security of supply can’t be relied upon from renewable sources. 

William Brown, Thurso, Caithness

The government is just preparing to take the handbrake off shale gas extraction. 

Stephen Ball, Nottingham

A policy hidden under green respectability for popular votes. Coal can be made as clean as gas – diversity of energy supply is paramount for security. Just wait for gas prices to rise, when market forces dictate. 

Ian Weslake-Hill, Cardiff

We should not risk energy security to reduce carbon emissions. We should not close coal-fired power stations producing low-cost energy and replace them with high-cost alternatives if the resultant costs make our industry uncompetitive. 

Andrew Taylor, Warwickshire

The government sends mixed messages. First, withdrawing funding for renewables, then closing coal-fired stations. The latter may encourage funding in renewables but, with the country being so tight on energy supply, this is a risky strategy, especially when we have to resort to Chinese funding for the next nuclear power station. 

Jonathan Armishaw, Staffordshire

Risk dangerous energy gaps? That’s a bit like saying Nero may risk breaking a string on his fiddle while Rome burns. Or, put more plainly, the consequences of action now to reduce atmospheric CO2 are as nothing compared with the consequences of inaction. The IMechE should be unambiguous on this issue: it should be firmly on the side of science. 

Stuart Brown, St Andrews, Fife

Closing down coal-fired power stations would make us totally dependent on foreign gas supplies. A review of all alternative technologies, and of improvements to the old ones, is required to determine the best integrated solution. It should be carried out by engineers, not politicians.

Roger Bostock, Stockport

A reasonable target. Let’s see if they are prepared to put the effort and money into it. 

Roger Best, Kingsclere, Hampshire

Let’s start buying candles. 

Mark Westwood, Forest of Dean

Share:

Professional Engineering magazine

Current Issue: Issue 1, 2025

Issue 1 2025 cover

Read now

Professional Engineering app

  • Industry features and content
  • Engineering and Institution news
  • News and features exclusive to app users

Download our Professional Engineering app

Professional Engineering newsletter

A weekly round-up of the most popular and topical stories featured on our website, so you won't miss anything

Subscribe to Professional Engineering newsletter

Opt into your industry sector newsletter

Related articles