Letter: Force of energy

Jenny Hogan (Letters, 2 October) makes a stout defence of renewable energy, as one would expect from a person who is employed by Scottish Renewables.

As more anti-wind turbine letters are published we see WWF, RSPB, FoE and Scottish Renewables rushing to print. This smells of desperation. They are full of rhetoric but unconvincing.

The Scotsman was correct to highlight the increase in our energy bills because of the large subsidies paid to developers. Every on-shore wind turbine receives 250,000 to 375,000 a year. Every one off-shore gets 375,000 to 560,000 every year.

Ms Hogan talks of "thousands of highly-paid and highly-skilled jobs". Where exactly are these? The recent off-shore Thanet wind farm is owned by a Swedish company Vattenfall and the turbines were built by Vesta in Denmark.

At least 80 per cent of the equipment, services and manpower was imported. Vattenfall will "harvest" 1.2 billion in subsidies. The "renewables industry" fails to reveal that conventional power stations are always on stand-by, ready to kick in when required and that Denmark and Germany have reduced subsidies and belatedly recognised that wind turbines have failed to reduce carbon dioxide or close one conventional power plant.

Clark Cross

Springfield Road

Linlithgow

Most of the time it is as well to be tactful and diplomatic, but there are also times when it is perhaps kinder to be brutally frank. Such were my thoughts when reading the half-baked drivel written by Councillor Euan McLeod of Nuclear Free Local Authorities Scotland (Letters, 28 September).

One only has to consider NFLA's plan for Scotland to provide 26GW of wind power electricity by 2020 to realise that its ideas have lost all contact with the realities of normal life for us poor mortals down here at ground level. At times electricity demand in Scotland falls to about 3GW and is only about 30GW for the whole of mainland Britain.

The only point in building wind farms is so that when the wind blows the electricity they produce can be used to replace some of that produced by our fossil fuel power stations, thus effecting a reduction in carbon emissions and "helping to combat climate change". They are not needed for any other purpose.

Since it is the intention to phase out all Scottish coal-fired power stations, it follows that the 26GW of fossil fuel generation needed to support Scotland's wind farm generation must be provided south of the Border. Has anyone in NFLA, or Holyrood, yet told the Westminster Parliament what is required of them?

I suggest the NFLA "recycles" its "Detailed Energy Policy Briefing" .

William Oxenham

Easter Currie Place

Currie, Edinburgh

I have read with interest the Nuclear Free Local Authorities Scotland's detailed policy briefing on Scottish energy policy.The document and Euan McLeod's letter quote Denmark as an example of using combined heat and power to cover times when wind drops.

No reference is made to the fact that Denmark depends on up to 1GW of electrical power being imported from Norway's hydro electric plants during periods of low wind. Denmark has in addition to wind power, a mix of power plants, some 50 per cent coal, 18 per cent gas and 13 per cent nuclear, yet some believe that Scotland can be 100 per cent renewable.

The simple fact is that when the wind speed is low, Scotland will have to import most of its electrical power should we pursue the goal of 100 per cent renewable generation.

Sandy Horn

Easter Belmont Road

Edinburgh