I AM writing in response to the letter of February 13 by Hitachi Horizon.

The reply is typical of commercial nuclear operators and does nothing to allay the fears of supporters of the STAND Against Oldbury campaign.

Notice how there is no mention of uranium extraction, transportation and refinement – none of which is carbon-neutral, so claims on a carbon-free future set the stall for a string of highly debatable claims.

Hitachi says the new power stations are needed to replace the old ones.

But you could fill a library with books and reports written on the precise topic of alternative energy means, without nuclear power.

Technology being 'advanced' is no guarantee for infallibility.

Today's technology is more advanced than yesterday's, this is the nature of development, but there is no such thing as 100 per cent error-free running. Especially in nuclear power stations.

For example, other Advanced Boiling Water Reactors – in terms of generations of nuclear technology the type Oldbury will be – in Japan operate on a reliability rating of less than 47 per cent.

That means for the Hamaoka-5 ABWR plant is not even running for 53 per cent of the year due to technical problems or safety shutdowns of one kind or another.

Another ABWR, licensed in the US as Horizon is keen to point out, was actually cancelled in March 2011 (this being the South Texas Project in Bay City).

Then we are told that 'safety is, and will always be, our first concern.' But this is not true. Hitachi-Horizon is a global business and its first priority is to its shareholders who will demand a return on their investment. Profits will be the first concern. That is why there are so few companies willing to take on new nuclear power. It is a high danger, low return business. In fact, that's precisely why EDF pulled out of the new build project at Oldbury before Hitachi came along.

Yes, there may well be many steps in the application process and a great deal of regulation, but just look at those surrounding the food industry. And yet here we are: eating 100 per cent horsemeat in our beef lasagne!

Regulation is only the procedure for checking safety processes – it does not in itself offer a guarantee of safety.

And that is why no private insurer will cover a nuclear power station and that is why the UK and EU state have to underwrite the colossal risk themselves.

Finally, I don't have room to challenge the employment figures cited, but the logic of jobs trumps everything is a truly desperate ploy.

Especially when you consider between their own website and the February 13 letter, Mr Gilbert has conjured out of hot air an extra 1,000 jobs (as at February 18 their site still says 5,000).

How reliable are these figures if you can add or lose 1,000 jobs so freely? And should jobs really trump everything? Should it really trump safety in a post-Fukushima-world?

And that's why I will be commemorating Fukushima on March 11 by a visit at noon to Hitachi-Horizon's Gloucester office to support the STAND Against Oldbury campaign. I hope other readers will too.

Carl Spiby

St Briavels