I write regarding the letter from Susan Thomas concerning power generation (Oxford Mail, April 27).

I worked in the power generation industry for years and I’m afraid Ms Thomas is not in possesion of the full facts.

Firstly coal-fired power stations are very energy hungry themselves, by virtue of what they have to do in processing fuel, and the associated plant is often large and inefficient.

There are health-related issues surrounding the heat, dust, fumes and, of course, the large plant involved.

Coal-fired stations are less efficient than combined cycle plants, such as Didcot B – which is cleaner and has a minimal, in comparison, impact on the environment.

The Severn barrage scheme has been talked about since the 1960s and would make a large contribution, but only when the tide is active. Wind farms are a clean way forward and have to be sited for maximum effect. But in all my travels around Europe I must admit to never having heard about faulty gearboxes, so where that has come from is new to me.

The benefit of a properly run and managed nuclear programme, such as the French have, is that it would supply the nation with good clean energy, with a minimum risk if all procedures are followed correctly.

In the UK we had a power supply industry that was admired worldwide.

However, in the interest of free enterprise, Margret Thatcher split it up and sold it off.

It is now predominantly owned by overseas companies who cannot afford the hundreds of millions of pounds needed to modernise it.

The way forward is for the state to invest. Long-term projects would not only bring much needed stability to industry, but would also produce a backbone of benefits to the nation and stability in energy retail prices.

This would prevent foreign-owned companies jacking up the prices here to subsidise their home markets.

Steve Plant Thorney Leys, Witney