John Quigley of Unite was right to point out that if the Scottish Government was genuinely concerned at achieving consensus on securing future energy supplies and cutting carbon emissions it would drop its irrational opposition to nuclear power and adopt a more balanced approach.
Kerr McGregor (Letters, September 10) is wrong to argue that our future energy demands can be met without nuclear or that we face a choice between nuclear and renewables.
While the Nationalists may be opposed to nuclear power, they know that they cannot do without it. Gimmicks such as their Green Energy Day are no substitute for a sustainable energy policy and no-one in the industry is fooled by these antics. Being in government, as a minority or otherwise, means that the SNP must say not only what it opposes but what it supports and what is deliverable within a relevant timescale. In particular, it must genuinely support new renewable projects and not masquerade as a supporter while simultaneously rejecting new developments or placing obstacles in the way of future development The reality is that Scotland will for the foreseeable future continue to be reliant on nuclear power for electricity generation, particularly if we harbour any ambition to reduce environmentally damaging carbon emissions. As the energy study published last year by AEA Technology made clear, the only medium-term energy scenarios that can secure supply and reduce carbon emissions involve the retention of nuclear energy as a vital component part of a balanced energy policy.
For all the empty rhetoric about Green Energy Day and the taking of credit for the rise in renewable energy production that many in the SNP continue to oppose, Alex Salmond has done nothing to alter this reliance on existing nuclear production. He might despise Hunterston and Torness but he continues to need them.
He should now go one step further in pursuit of the consensus he says he wants and support new-build at Hunterston. Otherwise he should come clean and tell local people how he intends to replace the 700 jobs directly dependent on Hunterston and the £26m in staff wages that it contributes to the North Ayrshire economy.
Allan Wilson, 44 Stoneyholm Road, Kilbirnie, Ayrshire.
Wind power has been criticised on grounds that continuity of supply is undependable as the turbine might be becalmed. Were intermittency a sound argument, we should not attempt many of the things we do. Some of those concerned about global warming say the world will become windier, but 200 years ago there was insignificant burning of fossil fuel. Then, there were 10,000 old-style windmills in Britain that did not have the aerodynamic blades of today. Despite that, history does not record many occasions when people starved because the wind was too light for millers to grind flour.
We could argue that we should not use solar panels for they work only when the sun shines and the same argument can be used against farming, for plants do not grow at night. There are few places in the world where catchment is sufficient to guarantee an all-year-round supply of water for hydroelectricity. The French built the Rance tidal scheme to generate electricity despite there being only two tides a day.
Eventually we shall run out of fossil fuels. We shall be forced to use alternative energy, of which the only high-density source is nuclear. Sustainable energy is very low density, even in favourable sites. As a result, all machines for converting sustainable energy will be very large compared with fossil-fuel machines. We can get a 500kW steam turbine on a single shaft, but it takes numerous wind turbines on a very large area of land for the same output.
Fossil fuels might have seduced us into thinking we can achieve the same concentration with sustainable energy. Natural forces over millions of years compacted plant residue into coal and oil. We do not have idle time to wait for that process.
Chris Parton, 40 Bellshill Road, Uddingston, 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