David Gleason's Torque column (June 21) uses selected statistics to allege - once again - that coal and nuclear power stations will give us cheaper electricity than renewables.

Why does he ignore the energy minister's own estimates - reported in Business Day, his own newspaper - that nuclear electricity will cost 10 times more per megawatt than extra imported hydropower?

The Torque column goes on to argue that coal and atomic power stations are getting better - but evades the hard facts that for a decade the costs of atomic power stations have risen higher than inflation, while the costs of renewable power sources have dramatically declined in real and absolute terms.

This is why The Economist's front-page feature was titled: Nuclear power - the dream that failed. Even Areva, Europe's biggest atomic power station builder, is now diversifying into renewable power stations.

Why has the Torque column time and again ignored what The Economist and Areva know? The same applies to your editorial and Insider columns, which have also, more than once, plugged atomic power instead of less expensive electricity options.

Keith Gottschalk

Claremont