I WAS appalled at the misinformation concerning solar panels and nuclear power in Rev David Haslam’s letter (Journal, November 27) praising the virtues of solar energy.

Solar panels contain a witch’s brew of 50-plus highly toxic chemicals including arsenic, lead and cadmium compounds.

This puts the workers who produce them at risk, but more importantly represents an enormous problem in safe disposal after their useful life.

To put this in context the volume of dangerous waste produced by solar panels, at the end of their lifespan of 20years, is 63,000 times the waste produced by nuclear power per megawatt hour.

Nuclear power is highly regulated and waste is managed through well understood and engineered processes; in contrast there is no specific regulation to deal disposal of the huge volume of solar panel waste.

It is claimed that nuclear power is ‘very expensive’ when in fact most studies show that the true cost of solar energy is about two-and-a-half to five times that of nuclear.

Furthermore, solar energy costs exclude the disposal of the waste, whereas nuclear costs include all waste management and decommissioning costs.

Taxpayers are paying huge subsidies to bridge this gap, money which would be much better spent on supporting the NHS and disadvantaged people.

When, after 20-25years, home owners have to face the significant costs of disposal and replacement of their solar panels, it will be uneconomic to do so if the subsidies have been removed.

Inevitably, this could lead to cases of illegal dumping of panels which could then leach their toxic brew into the water table, potentially putting the health of thousands at risk.

Finally, to produce the output of one nuclear power station would require covering 16,000 acres of our beautiful countryside with solar panels.

When comparing this blot on the landscape with a piece of iconic architecture that is a nuclear plant, I know which option I would prefer.

Dr Stuart Ward

Bretforton