CLIVE Brown is correct in citing the serious problem of CO2 pollution, but not in his thesis that ''windfarm protesters have their heads buried in the sand'' (Letters, August 14).
The UK government rules that electricity suppliers must source 10% of their power from renewables by 2010. In the UK, some 20% of total CO2 emissions arise from power-station generation. The 10% target, when met, will consequently amount to only 2% of the overall emission. Some achievement.
The real culprits are the internal combustion and aero jet engines, particularly the latter. It has been estimated that a return flight to the US could power each passenger's car for a full year. A clean, fuel cell electric engine, fed on hydrogen, is one of the options we should be vigorously pursuing, not fooling around with very expensive wind turbine construction.
Re the UK 10% renewable target, Scotland already produces an excess of electricity, 13% of which comes from renewables, mainly hydro. The Scottish Executive aims to increase this to 18%. Logically, all future windfarms should be sited south of the border until the percentage is equalised. There is plenty of wind there, particularly in the Westminster area. Moreover, Scotland's unique scenery would be spared the spreading blight of government-sponsored windfarms.
Frederick Jenkins,
The Lodge, Burnton, Kippen.
Recent correspondence in The Herald and excellent articles in the Sunday Herald for August 15 have focused attention on the general problem of providing sources of renewable energy. None has, so far, referred to projects, aired over 30 years ago I believe, to build dams across the estuaries of the Severn and Solway. These were to be fitted with generators driven by the predictable flow of tidal water into and out of the lakes created behind the dams.
Neither scheme was pursued at the time, probably for economic reasons. The economics have now changed and the dams would possibly have the added benefit of controlling flooding behind them when the sea levels rise due to melting Arctic ice. They also have the advantage of using proven technology so that they could be built starting now, knowing that they would work as intended.
Wave and tidal generating proposals may not be fully proved for several years so the government must accept nuclear generators to fill the gap. Work on these should start now and increased research be put into disposal of nuclear waste.
Bill Scott,
23 Lynn Drive, Eaglesham.
IN my letter (August 14) the cost of bringing the power ashore to the mainland from a proposed windfarm on the Isle of Lewis is a capital cost of (pounds) 400 per installed kW. Perhaps this was not made clear enough.
The figures for power generation that the Royal Academy of Engineering produced are: expressed per pence per kilowatt hour, combined cycle gas turbine 2.2, new-build nuclear (including decommissioning costs) 2.3, pulverised coal steam plant 2.5, onshore wind 3.7 but 5.4 if the cost of standby generation is included for the days of no wind, and offshore wind 5.5 or 7.2 including standby. Windpower generation is not cheap.
Eric Flack,
70 Crawford Drive, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article