I WAS interested to read your article 'Plans revealed for 97.5 acre solar farm on A38' in the Gazette on 17 July. I would like to respond to that article.

I can't think of a less appropriate use of 97.5 acres of Gloucestershire countryside than a solar farm - a sterile industrial blot on the landscape, with marginal gain for all except Cambridge Solar Power and the landowner.

This perfectly illustrates the farce and cynicism that passes for an energy policy these days.

Hopefully, this proposal will be rejected. But to make sure of that, those who care about our loss of countryside should make their views known to their elected representatives.

People should also, of course, be prepared to say what alternative they would accept.

For those who wish to maintain an affluent lifestyle but are also worried about carbon emissions and preservation of our countryside, I suggest that there is only one rational choice: nuclear power.

Nuclear provides very high electrical output on a relatively small footprint, with negligible CO2 emissions, irrespective of weather.

And for those who worry about the already small risk from nuclear power, the good news is that the fear of radiation is much greater than the actuality.

I can recommend interested readers to a very accessible book by Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Oxford University, called 'Radiation and Reason', which make a very convincing case for the benefits of nuclear power.

Lastly, I do hope that your article in the Gazette will encourage rationale debate about how we best meet out energy needs. Keep up the good work!

David Carter

Wotton-under-Edge