There is much misinformation flying about on Scotland's future energy supply. Ian Bell's contribution (May 23) was by no means the worst example. However, he somehow managed to discuss the energy issue without once pointing out it is a reserved matter, and MSPs have no power other than to block at the planning stage. So the onus is very much on Westminster to provide for future needs.

The display quote was misleading, as it suggested Hunterston accounted for 40% of currently-produced electricity. In fact, 40% is roughly the nuclear share of Hunterston and Torness. I live within a couple miles of Hunterston; another fact that should have been mentioned is that the reactors are only now being restarted after producing no electricity for the past 10 months or so.

However, Scotland currently has an electricity surplus of some 25%. To make that absolutely clear, Scotland produces 25% more electricity than it can use. I would be very surprised if Hunterston were to close on schedule in 2011: the authorities have already been patching it up for years. The easy comment on an increasing reliance on "Vladimir Putin's oil and gas" is only applicable to Great Britain as a whole; recent figures put Scottish production at between six to 10 times the national need. Admittedly, the normal arguments follow - "it will run out in 50 years" etc - but time is bought in the interim for restructuring, and such projections are based on a "no future investment" outlook.

Scotland is by no means an energy-poor nation; indeed, the Pentland Firth was has been described as "the Saudi Arabia of world tidal energy" by Professor Bryden of Robert Gordon University. In addition, Scotland's capacity for offshore wind is estimated to be some 25% of Europe's total. As Ian Bell rightly states, it has been a lack of leadership that has allowed such opportunities to be overlooked. This situation will, in all likelihood, continue while Westminster withholds energy as a reserved issue.

Patrick Kirkwood, 22 Weston Terrace, West Kilbride.

In his speech to the All-Energy 07 conference in Aberdeen, Jim Mather, the new Energy Minister, in outlining the SNP's vision (sic) failed to mention either wind or nuclear power. Instead he emphasised a reduction in energy consumption. From this can I ask Mr Mather when we can expect to see the lights being turned off across Scotland?

Alan Stewart, 133 Glencroft Road, Croftfoot, Glasgow.

Ian Bell (May 23) makes many good points as usual. However, nuclear power is not the zero carbon dioxide emissions technology it is advertised as. Mining, transporting and refining uranium ore requires large amounts of petrol, diesel and electricity to run diggers, trucks and centrifuges, especially as there are no uranium ore deposits in Britain. As supplies of high quality ore worldwide are exhausted, more and more ore will have to be mined and transported and further refined to create the same amount of fuel. Transporting and storing the nuclear waste also creates CO2 emissions.

There are leukaemia clusters causing cancer deaths around every nuclear power plant. Nuclear power is also heavily subsidised and is neither clean, safe, cheap nor an effective means of reducing climate change.

If renewable energies and clean-burning coal got a fraction of the subsidies nuclear power gets they would probably have increased their efficiency even more than they already have over the decades. There are already carbon-capture coal-fired power plants in the US. Will we let ourselves become more environmentally regressive than the toxic Texan by going for outdated, 50-year-old nuclear technology?

Duncan McFarlane, Beanshields Farm, Braidwood, Carluke.