Nuclear power replaces fossil fuels, while wind has the effect of locking them in – Herald (letters)

JENNY Hogan (“Time truth was told about the vital role of renewables in our
wellbeing”, Agenda, The Herald, April 22) makes the case that the continued
growth of renewables in Scotland is an essential response to climate change.

However, Scotland has been delivering copious low-carbon electrical energy
through nuclear since well before climate change became a political issue.
Indeed, nuclear is our single largest generator of electrical energy, with
the output from only two compact plants at Hunterston and Torness far
exceeding the combined output of every wind, wave and solar generator in
Scotland.

The sole result of the future growth of renewables in Scotland, mostly
through onshore wind, will be the replacement of long-lived, compact
baseload nuclear capacity with short-lived, diffuse and intermittent wind
capacity once Hunterston and Torness close in 2023.

But worse, due to its intermittent nature, wind requires significant
fossilfuel capacity to ensure that demand is met. Wind is in fact enabled
by fossil fuels, and locks in their use, while nuclear replaces fossil
fuels, in particular the most polluting baseload coal plants.

Colin R McInnes,
23 Williamwood Park West,
Netherlee,
Glasgow.

I NOTE with interest Jenny Hogan’s article and Jack Ponton’s response
(Letters, April 24). There are, however, two further claims made by
Scottish Renewables that I believe are misleading.

Large-scale energy storage is the elephant in the renewables room.

Utilising pumped storage when generating one-third of our energy from wind,
we would require a further 97 Cruachans to withstand a three-day lull
across the UK. Such lulls are not infrequent. This is a
topographic,geological and geo­graphic impossibility. We simply cannot do it.

The recently-mooted cost for doubling the size of Cruachan is £1bn, with
much infrastructure already in place, giving an approx­imate related total
cost, were it feasible, of around £175bn.

It is also the case that pumped storage uses energy; it takes up to 25%
more energy to pump the water to the upper reservoirs than is generated on
release, so at best it is partial storage.

Whilst researching the perform­ance of the Pelamis wave energy devices from
last year’s results (following nine years of sea testing) when preparing a
major review (since published), I established that with the then-current
model it would take Pelamis, operating continu­ously, at least 16 years to
go “green” – that is, generate the energy it took to build it. It was no
surprise, therefore, that Eon withdrew its support. Subsequently, the
Energy and Climate Change Directorate wrote to me confirming: “Clearly the
technology needed to utilise and harness Scotland’s wave and tidal power is
in its infancy…”

As a chartered electrical engineer I support the research, but the general
public who provide the subsidies should be appraised of the energy facts.

DB Watson,
Saviskaill,
Langdales Avenue,
Cumbernauld.