VERY often we read pejorative accounts of energy production. Nuclear energy is bad as it is inherently dangerous and capable of uncontrollable accidents. Wind energy is inefficient and gives out if the wind stops. Pumped storage is inefficient because what you get back in generation is only 75% of what the pumps need. Hydroelecticity is no good because we do not use high-quality water such as they do at Niagara.

The Norwegians have 24/365 electricity and do not use wasteful pump storage. If I really believed that nuclear energy is as dangerous as is made out by its opponents, I would not sleep easy in my bed at nights for it seems there is an enormous nuclear hazard just across the Channel in France, where it is seen as a permanently useful feature. In many parts of the world - eg, Iran and China - new nuclear reactors are being built.

We know from Chernobyl that radiation does not respect sovereign borders, but I have never heard a single opponent of nuclear electricity offer any opinion on what we should do about nuclear energy proliferation in other countries. Looking at the UK practice will not make the world safer from what nuclear opponents fear, but it could make us less competitive.

The reality is that few countries are blessed with adequate resources so we have to make the best use of what we have. Energy is the essential currency of modern life, and as Scotland is well supplied with suitable winds, we should milk them for all they are worth.

Chris Parton, 40 Bellshill Road, Uddingston

Frederick Jenkins (February 12) seems to be under the impression that nuclear power stations produce energy cleanly and in aesthetically pleasing buildings which will be less detrimental to Scotland's countryside. I disagree with him. Nuclear waste is as dirty as pollution gets, is expensive to deal with and will remain extremely dangerous for millennia. It will have to be stored somewhere and I feel the rural areas of Scotland will be top of any list of possible storage sites.

Nuclear power stations are also big, ugly and will not blend into the remote areas of the mainland they are likely to be built on. Building potential nuclear explosions next to large population centres is just not an option. Powerlines will need to be constructed to deliver the energy to the national grid so there will be the same impact on the environment in this respect as with wind turbines.

Mr Jenkins should be careful what he wishes for. Instead of relatively benign (and many would say pretty) wind turbines spoiling his view, he could have a huge nuclear power station to look at and a large pile of waste under his back garden.

Stuart Allan, 8 Nelson Street, Dundee

MY recent bill from Scottish Hydro Electric was accompanied by a book-let with a fetching lime green cover that told me, among other things, how to keep my house warm. "We love finding ways to save you money. We also love finding ways to combat global warming," says Hydro.

Fine by me. I could (1) insulate my walls, (2) insulate my loft, and so on. All good stuff, and what's more: "If we all had cavity-wall insulation, we'd cut CO2 emissions in the UK by 7m tonnes." As added encouragement in reducing my energy consumption and carbon dioxide production, Scottish HE is also giving away "energyplus" rewards: discounts at Argos or Homebase; donations to the British Heart Foundation; ah, here's the environmental one - something called power2: "Want to combat climate change? We'll put a unit of cleaner hydro-electricity (that means there's no carbon emitted) into the national grid for every unit you use. And we'll raise six trees for you every year! That way, some of the CO2 created by your use of gas at home is absorbed and not chucked into the atmosphere."

Excellent, good old Scottish Hydro Electric. But wait, there's still one more choice of reward - energyplus airmiles. You'll receive 150 airmiles when you join and then 25 airmiles every three months.

Terry Williams, Quarter of 2 Torrin, Broadford, Skye