Letters: Solar subsidies

You report that a £200 million investment in solar energy is to be made by a Stirling firm (20 January). This does not mean that Scotland will be any the better for it, if we look at what this entails.

The project is to install photovoltaic cells on south-facing roofs. The annual energy falling on such surfaces is in the region of 600 Kw per square metre, with the bulk of this being received in the summer and during the middle of the day. Thus the main production times are when the supply is least needed and the return is minimal as a percentage of the capital outlay. At current prices this gives a return in the region of 60 per square metre a year.

These schemes only become viable because they are heavily subsidised by the other electricity users through increases in the cost of their supply.

In fact, in this case it would probably be better all round if the panels were installed in the south of England, where they would be more effective but would still require subsidising. It would save far more electricity if the money was spent on insulating our houses and cutting other wastage - this would help everyone more.

Ian Ross

Eden Lane

Edinburgh

Having read your article about the plan to install hundreds of solar panels, I would venture to suggest this is not some altruistic action by Emotion Energy. Yes, occupiers of the house on which the panels are installed get some "free" electricity, but it should be noted that Emotion Energy gets a subsidy of around 40p per unit (kWh) of electricity generated by virtue of the feed in tariff payments - while the wholesale price is only 10-11p per unit. Who pays this subsidy? As ever, we electricity consumers pay via our ever increasing electricity bills.

GM Lindsay

Whinfield Gardens

Kinross