Michael Kelleher from Dundee (May 25) reckons that if we look in almost any river at this time of year we are likely to see a dried-up riverbed. I haven't seen the state of the Tay recently, but I can assure him that on the west coast the burns and rivers are providing an impressive spectacle of white water pouring, for the most part uselessly, towards the sea. This past winter I have seen the most intense and prolonged deluges I have ever experienced in over 50 winters.
His other point, that hydro has a profound impact on the ecological and environmental wellbeing of the locality is unarguable, but, then, the radioactivity of the beaches and waters around Dounreay and Sellafield also has a profound impact.
The hydro programme of the 1950s was an incredibly far-sighted investment in the future energy needs of Scotland and I earnestly hope that our current crop of politicians has the same ambitious vision. An expansion of the hydro scheme makes absolute sense, whether large-scale dam or run-of-the-river. Fast-tracking tidal and wave-power energy also makes sense.
The profound impact of the hydro programme was human, in cleared glens, as well as environmental but the legacy has been a secure energy source and recovered eco-systems (how does a beach or a local community recover from radioactive particles?) The people who keep saying: "No, we shouldn't do this" should be made to add: "This is what we should do instead." It's far too easy to be casually negative without suggesting alternatives.
Sandy Slater, 19 Lorn Drive, Glencoe, Argyll.
It's sad that the best Gerry Carlton (May 26) can do to extol the virtues of nuclear power is to try to imagine that if Alex Salmond put a wind turbine on his house "on average, it will produce half the power needed to boil a kettle in the dark".
Is it likely that "half the power needed to boil a kettle" will be the total power produced over the lifespan of the turbine? Or maybe just every year? Anyway, no doubt it would take weeks to get the device up and running at a working speed. And, of course, there's the well-known variability of wind which makes it so unsuitable. Just when Alex was standing by with the milk and sugar, the water would probably go cold again.
It is so blatantly obvious that opponents of renewable energy are just not capable of lateral thinking. The problem with using a variable power source such as wind energy lies in its storage, and the option most often mooted is pumped hydro. Of course, a larger grid of wind turbines spread over the country would tend to obviate the problem, since when one part of the country is calm, another will tend to be windy. A domestic turbine would likely be used to charge a battery and/or heat water.
I would refer doubters to Troen and Petersen's map of wind energy resources in Europe to see if they think they still need uranium plants to electrify the country. We hear constantly of how nuclear power is "clean" but, of course, it is not. Uranium still has to be mined and transported over long distances (often from Australia).
Large power stations (likely terrorist targets these days) have to be built and, at the end of the power cycle, the still-dangerous waste is basically "swept under the carpet". Of course, like all power stations, wind turbines consume energy in their production, but in operation they emit no toxins, acids or greenhouse gases.
Barry Lees, 12 Denholm Street, Greenock.
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