Letters 2022 - underlining indicates deletion by editor; square brackets indicate insertion.
To The Scotsman (18 May 2022)
Ian Moir is mistaken (Letter,14 May). When appropriate, the Government will pay for the decommissioning of EDF Energy's stations out of the Nuclear Liabilities Fund, incorporated into the National Loan Fund. EDF pays a contribution to the former out of electricity sales and at present the fund is valued at nearly £15 billion. None of it is used for infrastructure projects.
Ian Moir is mistaken (Letter,14 May). When appropriate, the Government will pay for the decommissioning of EDF Energy's stations out of the Nuclear Liabilities Fund, incorporated into the National Loan Fund. EDF pays a contribution to the former out of electricity sales and at present the fund is valued at nearly £15 billion. None of it is used for infrastructure projects.
To The Scotsman (16 May 2022) not published
Mary Thomas (Letter, 13 May) says that, in my letter of 12 May I am wrong about 'Scottish taxpayers' subsidy for nuclear power'. However, in that letter, I said no such thing; I merely corrected Frances Scott's claim (Letter, 9 May) that UK taxpayers are funding the construction of Hinkley Point C. So far, nuclear power in the UK, unlike wind power, has never been subsidised by taxpayers, either in construction or operation.
If the proposed funding of Sizewell C proceeds that will the first time that UK taxpayers pay toward the construction of a UK nuclear power station. This is welcome; funding by governments is cheaper than for private companies and it is the duty of governments to ensure that reliable electricity is available to consumers. Nuclear power provides that reliability. Scotland needs nuclear power as much as England; the Scottish Government should drop its unreasonable objection to it.
To Scotland on Sunday (16 May 2022)
According to Prof Declan Diver ('Government urged to back bid for world's first fusion power plant', 15 May), a nuclear fusion plant would be 'switched on when the weather's bad or when you can't run your wind power or at nighttime'.
Electricity from a fusion plant, if it works, will be expensive enough but making it an intermittent (back-up) generator would make it even more expensive. Nuclear fission stations are most efficient as base-load generators operating almost continuously. That must also apply to any future fusion stations.
Mary Thomas (Letter, 13 May) says that, in my letter of 12 May I am wrong about 'Scottish taxpayers' subsidy for nuclear power'. However, in that letter, I said no such thing; I merely corrected Frances Scott's claim (Letter, 9 May) that UK taxpayers are funding the construction of Hinkley Point C. So far, nuclear power in the UK, unlike wind power, has never been subsidised by taxpayers, either in construction or operation.
If the proposed funding of Sizewell C proceeds that will the first time that UK taxpayers pay toward the construction of a UK nuclear power station. This is welcome; funding by governments is cheaper than for private companies and it is the duty of governments to ensure that reliable electricity is available to consumers. Nuclear power provides that reliability. Scotland needs nuclear power as much as England; the Scottish Government should drop its unreasonable objection to it.
To Scotland on Sunday (16 May 2022)
According to Prof Declan Diver ('Government urged to back bid for world's first fusion power plant', 15 May), a nuclear fusion plant would be 'switched on when the weather's bad or when you can't run your wind power or at nighttime'.
Electricity from a fusion plant, if it works, will be expensive enough but making it an intermittent (back-up) generator would make it even more expensive. Nuclear fission stations are most efficient as base-load generators operating almost continuously. That must also apply to any future fusion stations.
To The Scotsman (9 May 2022) published 10 May 2022. Republished on 12 May unedited with an apology.
Frances Scott claimed that Hinkley (sic) Point C, the new nuclear power station being built in Somerset, is one of several major projects in England funded by UK taxpayers, including those in Scotland (Letter, 9 May).
She is [They are] mistaken. This project is funded by EDF (Électricité de France) and CGN (China General Nuclear Power Group). In effect it is being funded by French and Chinese taxpayers.
Moreover, its cost overrun is estimated to be £2.9bn, not £5bn and it has yet to be determined how delayed the completion will be.
Frances Scott claimed that Hinkley (sic) Point C, the new nuclear power station being built in Somerset, is one of several major projects in England funded by UK taxpayers, including those in Scotland (Letter, 9 May).
She is [They are] mistaken. This project is funded by EDF (Électricité de France) and CGN (China General Nuclear Power Group). In effect it is being funded by French and Chinese taxpayers.
Moreover, its cost overrun is estimated to be £2.9bn, not £5bn and it has yet to be determined how delayed the completion will be.
To The Scotsman (4 May 2022) published 5 May 2022
Anyone who casually refers to the Bible should ensure that they make no mistake in case they look foolish and ignorant. In his article 'If King Herod could run a census why does the SNP get it so wrong', 4 May) Murdo Fraser is a case in point.
The census referred to in Luke 2:1, was actually a local Judean census conducted by Rome which had taken direct rule of the province in CE 6 after ejecting its Herodian king. Herod the Great had been dead for 10 years. Moreover it did not involved the widespread movement of the population implied by Matthew and Luke or the travels of the 'holy family' (the latter were invented).
So Mr Fraser would have been better to ask 'if Rome could run a census...'.
Anyone who casually refers to the Bible should ensure that they make no mistake in case they look foolish and ignorant. In his article 'If King Herod could run a census why does the SNP get it so wrong', 4 May) Murdo Fraser is a case in point.
The census referred to in Luke 2:1, was actually a local Judean census conducted by Rome which had taken direct rule of the province in CE 6 after ejecting its Herodian king. Herod the Great had been dead for 10 years. Moreover it did not involved the widespread movement of the population implied by Matthew and Luke or the travels of the 'holy family' (the latter were invented).
So Mr Fraser would have been better to ask 'if Rome could run a census...'.
To The Scotsman (30 Apr 2022) published 3 May 2022
You are [The Scotsman is] right to draw attention to the creeping climate emergency ('Signal fires of emergency', 29 April).
While our immediate attention is on a European war and lingering Covid-19 effects, the existential global threat is outlined by the latest IPCC report. This concludes that, if emissions continue at the present rate, the global temperature will have increased by 1.5 degC [degrees centigrade] above pre-industrial levels between 2030 and 2052. It warns that warming from anthropogenic emissions will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise and ocean acidification, with associated impacts. There will also be climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth. An increase of 2 degC will make it all worse.
Do you wonder what would happen if steps are not taken to curb global heating in the long run? If you are not of a nervous disposition read Mark Lynas's book Our Final Warning, Six Degrees of Climate Emergency (2020). He takes the reader through all 6[six] degrees of heating and spells out the dire results of each. He notes that, according to the IPCC, an increase of 6 degrees in only 100 years is 'plausible'. That could see the end of civilisation.
It has become clear that attempts of reduce damaging emissions are largely ineffective worldwide. Emissions continue apace with the CO2 level in air reaching 419 parts per million (the pre-industrial level was 280). It could reach 500.
There is only one way to save planet Earth from becoming an uninhabitable hothouse and that is to screen us from the sun's heat. Several geoengineering projects have been suggested but rejected by people who think, naively, that emissions can be reduced. One or more of these methods is urgently needed.
You are [The Scotsman is] right to draw attention to the creeping climate emergency ('Signal fires of emergency', 29 April).
While our immediate attention is on a European war and lingering Covid-19 effects, the existential global threat is outlined by the latest IPCC report. This concludes that, if emissions continue at the present rate, the global temperature will have increased by 1.5 degC [degrees centigrade] above pre-industrial levels between 2030 and 2052. It warns that warming from anthropogenic emissions will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise and ocean acidification, with associated impacts. There will also be climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth. An increase of 2 degC will make it all worse.
Do you wonder what would happen if steps are not taken to curb global heating in the long run? If you are not of a nervous disposition read Mark Lynas's book Our Final Warning, Six Degrees of Climate Emergency (2020). He takes the reader through all 6[six] degrees of heating and spells out the dire results of each. He notes that, according to the IPCC, an increase of 6 degrees in only 100 years is 'plausible'. That could see the end of civilisation.
It has become clear that attempts of reduce damaging emissions are largely ineffective worldwide. Emissions continue apace with the CO2 level in air reaching 419 parts per million (the pre-industrial level was 280). It could reach 500.
There is only one way to save planet Earth from becoming an uninhabitable hothouse and that is to screen us from the sun's heat. Several geoengineering projects have been suggested but rejected by people who think, naively, that emissions can be reduced. One or more of these methods is urgently needed.
To The Scotsman (26 Apr 2022) (resent 28 Apr) published 29 Apr 2022)
Michael Veitch (Care, Friends of the Scotsman, 26 April) thinks that the truth is that God sent Jesus, that he died on the cross and rose again.
As Pilate is recorded as asking Jesus: 'What is truth?' In this case it appears to be true that Jesus died as he was crucified (he was stabbed by a Roman guard). But there is no evidence that God sent him, nor is the gospel record clear on resurrection (see John 21, an addendum chapter in which the disciples were not even sure that they met their master).
The Bible is not the 'ultimate source of truth in a confused world'; it's a hotchpotch of myths, history and speculation. Beware of anyone claiming have the truth about anything.
Michael Veitch (Care, Friends of the Scotsman, 26 April) thinks that the truth is that God sent Jesus, that he died on the cross and rose again.
As Pilate is recorded as asking Jesus: 'What is truth?' In this case it appears to be true that Jesus died as he was crucified (he was stabbed by a Roman guard). But there is no evidence that God sent him, nor is the gospel record clear on resurrection (see John 21, an addendum chapter in which the disciples were not even sure that they met their master).
The Bible is not the 'ultimate source of truth in a confused world'; it's a hotchpotch of myths, history and speculation. Beware of anyone claiming have the truth about anything.
To The Scotsman (copy to SoS) (25 Apr 2022) published in S'man 26 Apr 2022 also in Edinburgh Evening News 28 Apr)
There is concern regarding land ownership in Scotland, with about half of all rural land in private hands, some foreign.
In 1840, French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon claimed that 'Property is theft'. In a way, he was right. Originally the first owner of a parcel of land must have appropriated it, i.e.[that is] staked a claim to it. All subsequent owners base their rights to the land on that first claim.
It is reasonable therefore to believe that no one has any basic right to own any land in Scotland; it should be owned on behalf of everyone by the state and occupiers should pay to occupy it.
How can such a situation be achieved? Could the state step in every time property is sold and claim ownership of the land (not anything built or growing on it)? Would the state have to buy the land?
People could be allowed to occupy land provided they pay a Land Valuation Tax to the appropriate local authority acting as an agent for the state. This would do away with the unfair Council Tax. What people do with the land would still be subject to planning law.
Is this 'pie in the sky' or a realistic solution to the land ownership problem?
There is concern regarding land ownership in Scotland, with about half of all rural land in private hands, some foreign.
In 1840, French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon claimed that 'Property is theft'. In a way, he was right. Originally the first owner of a parcel of land must have appropriated it, i.e.[that is] staked a claim to it. All subsequent owners base their rights to the land on that first claim.
It is reasonable therefore to believe that no one has any basic right to own any land in Scotland; it should be owned on behalf of everyone by the state and occupiers should pay to occupy it.
How can such a situation be achieved? Could the state step in every time property is sold and claim ownership of the land (not anything built or growing on it)? Would the state have to buy the land?
People could be allowed to occupy land provided they pay a Land Valuation Tax to the appropriate local authority acting as an agent for the state. This would do away with the unfair Council Tax. What people do with the land would still be subject to planning law.
Is this 'pie in the sky' or a realistic solution to the land ownership problem?
To The Sunday Times (11 Apr 2022) not published
Your story of the BL in Boston Spa failed to mention that it participates in Inter Library Loans, a system whereby any library user in the UK can request an item not available locally. Sometimes the item will come from The British Library Document Supply Centre. I have reason to be thankful for this service.
Your story of the BL in Boston Spa failed to mention that it participates in Inter Library Loans, a system whereby any library user in the UK can request an item not available locally. Sometimes the item will come from The British Library Document Supply Centre. I have reason to be thankful for this service.
To The Scotsman (8 Apr 2022) published 9 Apr 2022 (an edited version in the Edinburgh Evening News on 11 Apr 2022)
The SNP's existential opposition to nuclear power has always been a puzzle to me. It seems to go back to the time when Jack McConnell, as first minister, declared Labour against nuclear power on the basis that no one knew what to do with the radioactive waste. In fact this was mistaken. The nuclear industry handles its waste better and more safely than any other industry and the route to storage and disposal is well established. No one has ever been harmed by radioactive waste but many have been harmed by the waste from traditional power generation.
I conclude that opposition to nuclear power stems from ignorance and prejudice. Uranium, created in exploding stars, has the highest energy density of any fuel and few uses except for power generation (pace nuclear weapons). Luckily humans found a way to exploit its potential for providing continuous electricity without harmful emissions. Just the fuel we need to power our way through global warming. There is no shortage of uranium (it can even be extracted from seawater); rather than being mined, it and some plutonium can be reclaimed from the 'used fuel' burned in reactors. Better use of it and the plutonium could be made through the use of fast reactors like the prototypes developed at Dounreay. These reactors can even make new fuel from non-fissile uranium-238. It is even possible to burn radioactive waste (fission products) in a reactor such that little real waste remains. I hear nothing from the UK government about fast reactors, which operate in several other developed countries.
The Scottish Government appears to have no valid reason for its opposition, except perhaps that it is against any Westminster policy. Nevertheless, Scotland will eventually have to import nuclear-powered electricity as its obsession with renewables leads to blackouts.
The SNP's existential opposition to nuclear power has always been a puzzle to me. It seems to go back to the time when Jack McConnell, as first minister, declared Labour against nuclear power on the basis that no one knew what to do with the radioactive waste. In fact this was mistaken. The nuclear industry handles its waste better and more safely than any other industry and the route to storage and disposal is well established. No one has ever been harmed by radioactive waste but many have been harmed by the waste from traditional power generation.
I conclude that opposition to nuclear power stems from ignorance and prejudice. Uranium, created in exploding stars, has the highest energy density of any fuel and few uses except for power generation (pace nuclear weapons). Luckily humans found a way to exploit its potential for providing continuous electricity without harmful emissions. Just the fuel we need to power our way through global warming. There is no shortage of uranium (it can even be extracted from seawater); rather than being mined, it and some plutonium can be reclaimed from the 'used fuel' burned in reactors. Better use of it and the plutonium could be made through the use of fast reactors like the prototypes developed at Dounreay. These reactors can even make new fuel from non-fissile uranium-238. It is even possible to burn radioactive waste (fission products) in a reactor such that little real waste remains. I hear nothing from the UK government about fast reactors, which operate in several other developed countries.
The Scottish Government appears to have no valid reason for its opposition, except perhaps that it is against any Westminster policy. Nevertheless, Scotland will eventually have to import nuclear-powered electricity as its obsession with renewables leads to blackouts.
To The Scotsman (6 Apr 2022) published 8 Apr 2022
In her promotion of tidal power ('We must not ignore the clockwork reliability of tidal power', 6 April), Rebecca Foster failed to mention that generation from tidal stream must fail twice a day as the tide turns.
Archibald Lawrie (Letters, 4 April) claimed that tidal power is available 24 hours a day but also failed to mention the tidal pauses.
Consequently this power source is only partly reliable. Backup would be needed while the tide turns.
In her promotion of tidal power ('We must not ignore the clockwork reliability of tidal power', 6 April), Rebecca Foster failed to mention that generation from tidal stream must fail twice a day as the tide turns.
Archibald Lawrie (Letters, 4 April) claimed that tidal power is available 24 hours a day but also failed to mention the tidal pauses.
Consequently this power source is only partly reliable. Backup would be needed while the tide turns.
To The Scotsman (4 Apr 2022) not published
Archibald Lawrie (Letters, 4 April) claimed that tidal power is available 24 hours a day. However, due to the turn of the tide, generation stops twice a day. Consequently it is not reliable.
Donald Carmichael (Letters, same day) echoed Bill Graham's call for methanol to be used as fuel for power generation and urged its use as vehicle fuel. However methanol is a hydrocarbon; burning it will add CO2 to the atmosphere and make global warming worse.
Archibald Lawrie (Letters, 4 April) claimed that tidal power is available 24 hours a day. However, due to the turn of the tide, generation stops twice a day. Consequently it is not reliable.
Donald Carmichael (Letters, same day) echoed Bill Graham's call for methanol to be used as fuel for power generation and urged its use as vehicle fuel. However methanol is a hydrocarbon; burning it will add CO2 to the atmosphere and make global warming worse.
To The Scotsman (1 Apr 2022) published 2 Apr 2022 (also in Edinburgh Evening News on 4 Apr)
Rishi Sunak says that he can't help everyone but he could help struggling pensioners by reintroducing the triple lock on pensions. This would raise pensions on 11 April by 8 per cent and provide help to those pensioners having to decide whether to heat or eat.
In November last the House of Lords voted to keep the lock but the House of Commons later overruled it, letting pensions rise this April by only about 2.5 per cent. The triple lock, a pension commitment, is due to return in April 2023, but the funding crisis is here and now. The Chancellor has 9 days to act.
Rishi Sunak says that he can't help everyone but he could help struggling pensioners by reintroducing the triple lock on pensions. This would raise pensions on 11 April by 8 per cent and provide help to those pensioners having to decide whether to heat or eat.
In November last the House of Lords voted to keep the lock but the House of Commons later overruled it, letting pensions rise this April by only about 2.5 per cent. The triple lock, a pension commitment, is due to return in April 2023, but the funding crisis is here and now. The Chancellor has 9 days to act.
To The Scotsman (27 Mar 2022) not published
Struan Stevenson, in his story about appeasement ('Don't make same Putin mistake', 26 March) makes the claim that Russia 'shelled Europe's biggest nuclear plant'. He refers to the attack on the power station at Zaporizhzhia.
This scurrilous throw-away remark appears to be an attempt to emphasise how careless the Russian army is. However the claim is entirely false. The power station was not attacked, just its Ukrainian defenders, some of whom were killed. Apparently Russia merely wanted to control the power station, as is has at Chernobyl. The station continues to operate safely.
Struan Stevenson, in his story about appeasement ('Don't make same Putin mistake', 26 March) makes the claim that Russia 'shelled Europe's biggest nuclear plant'. He refers to the attack on the power station at Zaporizhzhia.
This scurrilous throw-away remark appears to be an attempt to emphasise how careless the Russian army is. However the claim is entirely false. The power station was not attacked, just its Ukrainian defenders, some of whom were killed. Apparently Russia merely wanted to control the power station, as is has at Chernobyl. The station continues to operate safely.
To The Scotsman (22 Mar 2022) published 24 Mar 2022
Dr Andy Bannister of Solas (Friends, 22 March) thinks we will only find real happiness in Jesus!
I was never so happy as when I renounced Christianity; Christians carry the burden of unspecified sin and worry about its effects here and in the supposed afterlife. The duties of forgiveness and prayer were also burdens.
In addition Dr Bannister claims that Jesus claimed to be 'God himself'. Can he quote a verse that justifies that?
Jesus is recorded as making it clear that he was not God (Mk 10:18). Indeed, as he believed himself to be the expected Messiah (two Messiahs in fact), he could not be God. The Messiah was believed to be a human, acting as viceroy of God on Earth.
It was the Early Church that turned Jesus into a a divine universal saviour god. This is fully explained in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus.
Dr Andy Bannister of Solas (Friends, 22 March) thinks we will only find real happiness in Jesus!
I was never so happy as when I renounced Christianity; Christians carry the burden of unspecified sin and worry about its effects here and in the supposed afterlife. The duties of forgiveness and prayer were also burdens.
In addition Dr Bannister claims that Jesus claimed to be 'God himself'. Can he quote a verse that justifies that?
Jesus is recorded as making it clear that he was not God (Mk 10:18). Indeed, as he believed himself to be the expected Messiah (two Messiahs in fact), he could not be God. The Messiah was believed to be a human, acting as viceroy of God on Earth.
It was the Early Church that turned Jesus into a a divine universal saviour god. This is fully explained in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus.
To Scotland on Sunday (14 Mar 2022) not published
John F Robins should stick with concern for animals. He is out of his depth with nuclear power: in several respects.
In addition his concern for nuclear power stations in Ukraine is misplaced. The evidence is that Russian forces merely wanted to control these power plants, not 'blow them up' as claimed by your report elsewhere.
At Zaporizhzhia they were met by Ukrainian defences with the result that some of the latter were killed and a training building set alight. The power plant itself was undamaged and I can see no evidence that a nuclear accident was likely to occur, either there or at Chernobyl, where three units remain operational. At Zaporizhzhia there are six.
John F Robins should stick with concern for animals. He is out of his depth with nuclear power: in several respects.
In addition his concern for nuclear power stations in Ukraine is misplaced. The evidence is that Russian forces merely wanted to control these power plants, not 'blow them up' as claimed by your report elsewhere.
At Zaporizhzhia they were met by Ukrainian defences with the result that some of the latter were killed and a training building set alight. The power plant itself was undamaged and I can see no evidence that a nuclear accident was likely to occur, either there or at Chernobyl, where three units remain operational. At Zaporizhzhia there are six.
To The Scotsman (10 Mar 2022) not published
In his speech, President Zelensky once more weaponised the Zaporozhe nuclear power station, this time claiming that it had been hit by tanks (your report 9 March).
In fact we know that the power station itself is undamaged; it was only a training building that caught fire, accidentally or not we don't know. The evidence is that, without tanks, Russian forces took control of the station in the face of opposition from its Ukrainian guards and perhaps some troops. No doubt the same happened at Chernobyl.
It would not be in Russian interests to damage the stations; they are a valuable prize.
In his speech, President Zelensky once more weaponised the Zaporozhe nuclear power station, this time claiming that it had been hit by tanks (your report 9 March).
In fact we know that the power station itself is undamaged; it was only a training building that caught fire, accidentally or not we don't know. The evidence is that, without tanks, Russian forces took control of the station in the face of opposition from its Ukrainian guards and perhaps some troops. No doubt the same happened at Chernobyl.
It would not be in Russian interests to damage the stations; they are a valuable prize.
To Edinburgh Evening News (9 Mar 2022) not published
You report ('Scottish renewable sources could provide the answer to oil and gas', 8 March) that Michael Matheson claims that 'alternative sources of energy' (he means renewables) can provide 'a more consistent and stable form of energy supply'.
What nonsense. Renewable energy is inherently unreliable and, in any case, can't provide oil or gas. Ignoring fossil fuels, only nuclear power can provide reliable electricity. Renewables are an expensive and ugly distraction.
You report ('Scottish renewable sources could provide the answer to oil and gas', 8 March) that Michael Matheson claims that 'alternative sources of energy' (he means renewables) can provide 'a more consistent and stable form of energy supply'.
What nonsense. Renewable energy is inherently unreliable and, in any case, can't provide oil or gas. Ignoring fossil fuels, only nuclear power can provide reliable electricity. Renewables are an expensive and ugly distraction.
To The Scotsman (4 Mar 2022) not published
The alarm over the attack on the nuclear power station at Zaporozhe appears to have been fuelled by ignorance and the mistaken belief that any such power station can explode like the one at Chernobyl (that as a chemical explosion due to an operational mistake). Even the Ukraine president joined in the alarm.
Yet the Zaporozhe reactors are of a different type to those at Chernobyl. No nuclear reactor can cause a nuclear explosion; it's not configured to do so and can't be reconfigured to do so. The plant will as safe now as it was before the attack.
The alarm over the attack on the nuclear power station at Zaporozhe appears to have been fuelled by ignorance and the mistaken belief that any such power station can explode like the one at Chernobyl (that as a chemical explosion due to an operational mistake). Even the Ukraine president joined in the alarm.
Yet the Zaporozhe reactors are of a different type to those at Chernobyl. No nuclear reactor can cause a nuclear explosion; it's not configured to do so and can't be reconfigured to do so. The plant will as safe now as it was before the attack.
To Scotland on Sunday (1 Mar 2022) not published
John F Robins (Letter, 27 February) should note that highly-radioactive waste will not be kept at Sellafield for 5700 years. Eventually it will all go to a deep geological repository like those already under construction in Sweden and Finland.
Any deaths from the Windscale or Chernobyl are irrelevant to consideration of modern UK nuclear reactors, whose safety record is excellent. Scaremongering about radioactivity is unhelpful and misleading.
Excess electricity can be stored as potential energy in pumped storage hydro schemes but can be used afterwards to generate power only for a short time: less than a day in the case of Cruachan. Since generation stops twice a day as the tide turns, tidal power is unreliable. Only nuclear generation is reliable. Calling it 'very dangerous' and 'expensive' is sheer mudslinging from ignorance.
John F Robins (Letter, 27 February) should note that highly-radioactive waste will not be kept at Sellafield for 5700 years. Eventually it will all go to a deep geological repository like those already under construction in Sweden and Finland.
Any deaths from the Windscale or Chernobyl are irrelevant to consideration of modern UK nuclear reactors, whose safety record is excellent. Scaremongering about radioactivity is unhelpful and misleading.
Excess electricity can be stored as potential energy in pumped storage hydro schemes but can be used afterwards to generate power only for a short time: less than a day in the case of Cruachan. Since generation stops twice a day as the tide turns, tidal power is unreliable. Only nuclear generation is reliable. Calling it 'very dangerous' and 'expensive' is sheer mudslinging from ignorance.
To The Scotsman (25 Feb 2022) published 26 Feb 2022
You claim that renewables provide 'ironclad energy security' ([Scotsman] 24 February).
Hardly. Renewables are inherently unreliable; at times they provide no generation at all so jeopardising energy security. I am surprised at you taking this line.
David Cameron was right; relying on 'green crap' was and is stupid. Wind farms, apart from being intermittent generators, are huge blots on the landscape and even the seascape. Scotland values its natural environment but is now self-harming with these developments.
To achieve 'ironclad energy security' without environmental damage it is necessary to develop more nuclear generation.
You claim that renewables provide 'ironclad energy security' ([Scotsman] 24 February).
Hardly. Renewables are inherently unreliable; at times they provide no generation at all so jeopardising energy security. I am surprised at you taking this line.
David Cameron was right; relying on 'green crap' was and is stupid. Wind farms, apart from being intermittent generators, are huge blots on the landscape and even the seascape. Scotland values its natural environment but is now self-harming with these developments.
To achieve 'ironclad energy security' without environmental damage it is necessary to develop more nuclear generation.
To Edinburgh Evening News (22 Feb 2022) published 24 Feb 2022
C Scott (Letters, 21 February) is wrong [when he writes that]; a contract for difference does [not] apply to the contract for the nuclear [power industry (Letters. 21 February)]
. [The] power station being constructed at Hinckley Point. It guarantees the price for the electricity Hinkley will generate for 35 years.
However, in future it is proposed to finance the construction of nuclear power stations by the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model. This allows private investors such as pension funds and insurers to finance nuclear projects and reduce reliance on overseas investors. The Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill 2021-22 is presently going through Parliament.
New nuclear power stations financed through the RAB would be funded by a charge on electricity suppliers, who are expected to pass the cost on to consumers.
C Scott (Letters, 21 February) is wrong [when he writes that]; a contract for difference does [not] apply to the contract for the nuclear [power industry (Letters. 21 February)]
. [The] power station being constructed at Hinckley Point. It guarantees the price for the electricity Hinkley will generate for 35 years.
However, in future it is proposed to finance the construction of nuclear power stations by the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model. This allows private investors such as pension funds and insurers to finance nuclear projects and reduce reliance on overseas investors. The Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill 2021-22 is presently going through Parliament.
New nuclear power stations financed through the RAB would be funded by a charge on electricity suppliers, who are expected to pass the cost on to consumers.
To The Scotsman (19 Feb 2022) not published
Your claim that warm air holds more moisture (19 February) is a colloquial myth. At best its a metaphor for what happens but is misleading.
Air does not 'hold' water. If there were no air above a water surface, water molecules would still evaporate and form a vapour by themselves.
Warm air often has more water (vapour) molecules than cooler air because of the energy level of the water molecules. When air is warmed the water molecules are also warmed giving them more energy. Therefore warm air, which is filled with highly-energised water molecules, often contains more water molecules, but it doesn't 'hold' them.
Your claim that warm air holds more moisture (19 February) is a colloquial myth. At best its a metaphor for what happens but is misleading.
Air does not 'hold' water. If there were no air above a water surface, water molecules would still evaporate and form a vapour by themselves.
Warm air often has more water (vapour) molecules than cooler air because of the energy level of the water molecules. When air is warmed the water molecules are also warmed giving them more energy. Therefore warm air, which is filled with highly-energised water molecules, often contains more water molecules, but it doesn't 'hold' them.
To Edinburgh Evening News (18 Feb 2022) published 19 Feb 2022
If Baroness Dr Ros Altmann claimed that the UK would continue to pay Scottish pensions after independence (quoted by Mary Thomas in her letter of 17 February), Altmann [she] must have overlooked that fact that independence for Scotland breaks up the historic Great Britain and, consequently, the UK.
If the UK no longer exists it cannot continue to pay any pensions. Pensions would be the responsibility of the successor states: Scotland and what's left of the UK (what would one call it? EWNI?). Those states would also be responsible for paying pensions to their own expats.
If Baroness Dr Ros Altmann claimed that the UK would continue to pay Scottish pensions after independence (quoted by Mary Thomas in her letter of 17 February), Altmann [she] must have overlooked that fact that independence for Scotland breaks up the historic Great Britain and, consequently, the UK.
If the UK no longer exists it cannot continue to pay any pensions. Pensions would be the responsibility of the successor states: Scotland and what's left of the UK (what would one call it? EWNI?). Those states would also be responsible for paying pensions to their own expats.
To Scotland on Sunday (15 Feb 2022) published 20 Feb 2022
John F Robins mistakenly thinks nuclear power plants are 'tools of mass destruction' (Letters. 13 February).
1) He thinks radioactive waste remains 'lethal for over 50,000 years'. Few fission products have a half-life ('HL': the time taken for activity to halve) that long. It is also simplistic as the different elements in the waste have different half-lives . Moreover, the longer the half-life the less radioactive the elements is, e.g. Plutonium-239 has an HL of 24,000 years but its low radioactivity means it is safe to handle. The dangerous fission products are things like Samarium-151 (HL 90 years). The total radioactivity of a mixture of pure fission products decreases rapidly for the first several hundred years before stabilizing at a low level that changes little for hundreds of thousands of years. In any case, fission products constitute only about 3 per cent of all radioactive waste from a power reactor. Most waste is far less radioactive.
2) It's not true that no one knows how to store and manage radioactive waste (not just from nuclear power but from industry and medicine). The waste has been handled safely at Sellafield since 1965. It sends low-level waste to disposal at Drigg and holds the high-level waste until a geological disposal facility is built. Plans are in hand for the latter. There is no limit to the amount of such waste that could be stored until it becomes harmless.
3) It's hard to see how a nuclear power station could be any use to a terrorist. The stations have armed guards and what could a terrorist do to it anyway? Nuclear power station in the UK cannot explode.
4) The accidents Mr Robins mentions are irrelevant to the UK nuclear power programme. The Windscale fire was not in a power station; the accident at Three Mile Island was due to a ventilation fault and harmed no one; Chernobyl was a type of reactor that has been built nowhere else in the world and would not have gained approval in the UK, those who died where mainly fire-fighters; Fukushima was not an accident in the power station but the result of a tsunami that overwhelmed pumps, only one worker was harmed.
Exaggerating the defects of nuclear power is not a rational argument against its use. If the alternative is a lack of electricity then its an option that needs to be considered.
John F Robins mistakenly thinks nuclear power plants are 'tools of mass destruction' (Letters. 13 February).
1) He thinks radioactive waste remains 'lethal for over 50,000 years'. Few fission products have a half-life ('HL': the time taken for activity to halve) that long. It is also simplistic as the different elements in the waste have different half-lives . Moreover, the longer the half-life the less radioactive the elements is, e.g. Plutonium-239 has an HL of 24,000 years but its low radioactivity means it is safe to handle. The dangerous fission products are things like Samarium-151 (HL 90 years). The total radioactivity of a mixture of pure fission products decreases rapidly for the first several hundred years before stabilizing at a low level that changes little for hundreds of thousands of years. In any case, fission products constitute only about 3 per cent of all radioactive waste from a power reactor. Most waste is far less radioactive.
2) It's not true that no one knows how to store and manage radioactive waste (not just from nuclear power but from industry and medicine). The waste has been handled safely at Sellafield since 1965. It sends low-level waste to disposal at Drigg and holds the high-level waste until a geological disposal facility is built. Plans are in hand for the latter. There is no limit to the amount of such waste that could be stored until it becomes harmless.
3) It's hard to see how a nuclear power station could be any use to a terrorist. The stations have armed guards and what could a terrorist do to it anyway? Nuclear power station in the UK cannot explode.
4) The accidents Mr Robins mentions are irrelevant to the UK nuclear power programme. The Windscale fire was not in a power station; the accident at Three Mile Island was due to a ventilation fault and harmed no one; Chernobyl was a type of reactor that has been built nowhere else in the world and would not have gained approval in the UK, those who died where mainly fire-fighters; Fukushima was not an accident in the power station but the result of a tsunami that overwhelmed pumps, only one worker was harmed.
Exaggerating the defects of nuclear power is not a rational argument against its use. If the alternative is a lack of electricity then its an option that needs to be considered.
To The Scotsman (15 Feb 2022) not published
In the ongoing debate about who will pay pensions, no one seems to have noticed that, on Scottish secession, the UK would cease to exist. In that case, with two independent countries, Scotland and a UK rump (what could one call it: 'EWNI'?), each would have to deal with its own pensions. EWNI would not pay Scottish pensions any more than Scotland would pay EWNI's. Furthermore each country would have deal with the pensions of its own expats.
In the ongoing debate about who will pay pensions, no one seems to have noticed that, on Scottish secession, the UK would cease to exist. In that case, with two independent countries, Scotland and a UK rump (what could one call it: 'EWNI'?), each would have to deal with its own pensions. EWNI would not pay Scottish pensions any more than Scotland would pay EWNI's. Furthermore each country would have deal with the pensions of its own expats.
To The Scotsman (12 Feb 2022) not published
In the ongoing debate about who will pay pensions, no one seems to have noticed that, on Scottish secession, the UK would cease to exist. In that case, with two independent countries (Scotland and EWNI) each would have to deal with its own pensions. EWNI would not pay Scottish pensions any more than Scotland would pay EWNI's. Furthermore each country would have deal with the pensions of its own expats.
In the ongoing debate about who will pay pensions, no one seems to have noticed that, on Scottish secession, the UK would cease to exist. In that case, with two independent countries (Scotland and EWNI) each would have to deal with its own pensions. EWNI would not pay Scottish pensions any more than Scotland would pay EWNI's. Furthermore each country would have deal with the pensions of its own expats.
To The Scotsman (10 Feb 2022) published 11 Feb 2022
You claim that 'climate change' (it's really 'global warming' and even that term understates the matter) is 'far too important an issue to be co-opted and subsumed into a relatively petty and parochial dispute on these islands. It's much, much more than a potential source of grievance politics.' (Leader, 10 February)
True but anything we do on 'these islands' will be trivial in comparison to the huge task facing humanity. Action is needed on a global scale by international bodies and anything we do is a distraction from the global effort required.
While greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, there is little hope of any country, particularly not the USA or China, getting them down enough to even halt emissions. 'Net Zero' will probably not be reached and, even if it were, that's not enough to halt runaway global warming. The only effective way to get control of the climate now is through some sort of geoengineering (shading us from the sun), but who is going to organise it?
If the world does not organise that, our civilisation is doomed.
You claim that 'climate change' (it's really 'global warming' and even that term understates the matter) is 'far too important an issue to be co-opted and subsumed into a relatively petty and parochial dispute on these islands. It's much, much more than a potential source of grievance politics.' (Leader, 10 February)
True but anything we do on 'these islands' will be trivial in comparison to the huge task facing humanity. Action is needed on a global scale by international bodies and anything we do is a distraction from the global effort required.
While greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, there is little hope of any country, particularly not the USA or China, getting them down enough to even halt emissions. 'Net Zero' will probably not be reached and, even if it were, that's not enough to halt runaway global warming. The only effective way to get control of the climate now is through some sort of geoengineering (shading us from the sun), but who is going to organise it?
If the world does not organise that, our civilisation is doomed.
To The Scotsman (5 Feb 2022) published 7 Feb 2022
Apart from their huge cost [outlined by (]Clark Cross's l[(L]etter, 5 February), heat pumps have defects. Unless installed as a house is built, when the cost is lower, they are difficult to install. The installation process means significant work and disruption to the house, and garden if it is a ground-source heat pump. Some heat pumps experience trouble in cold area which can damage the system and mean that in winter full efficiency cannot be reached. Some of the fluids used for the heat transfer are of questionable sustainability and raise environmental concern.
Air-source heat pumps are less efficient than ground-source and may not achieve the required temperatures. They may need to operate longer and radiators may need to be changed to larger sizes. Also they would need servicing every two years. Heat pumps cannot provide hot water; electricity will be required.
Since heat-pumps and water heating use electricity, one wonders if there will be enough available, what with transport going electric. I wouldn't want one.
Why is the UK going to all this trouble when the planet is not going to notice the UK's trivial contribution? We will be 'cutting off our nose to spite our face'!
It would be better and simpler to hydrogenise the gas grid.
Apart from their huge cost [outlined by (]Clark Cross's l[(L]etter, 5 February), heat pumps have defects. Unless installed as a house is built, when the cost is lower, they are difficult to install. The installation process means significant work and disruption to the house, and garden if it is a ground-source heat pump. Some heat pumps experience trouble in cold area which can damage the system and mean that in winter full efficiency cannot be reached. Some of the fluids used for the heat transfer are of questionable sustainability and raise environmental concern.
Air-source heat pumps are less efficient than ground-source and may not achieve the required temperatures. They may need to operate longer and radiators may need to be changed to larger sizes. Also they would need servicing every two years. Heat pumps cannot provide hot water; electricity will be required.
Since heat-pumps and water heating use electricity, one wonders if there will be enough available, what with transport going electric. I wouldn't want one.
Why is the UK going to all this trouble when the planet is not going to notice the UK's trivial contribution? We will be 'cutting off our nose to spite our face'!
It would be better and simpler to hydrogenise the gas grid.
To The Scotsman (1 Feb 2022) published, with erroneous corrections, on 4 Feb 2022
Sarah Baillie claimed that 'Scotland now meets [all?] its electricity needs from renewables' ('A turning point on road to net zero', [Friends of the Scotsman], 31 January).
This is both incorrect and misleading. Almost every consumer of electricity in Great Britain (GB) receives power from the National (Electricity) Grid which is fed by various generators. As I write, only 50.8 per cent derives from renewables; 33.4 from burning fossil fuels and 15.7 per cent from low carbon sources. The latter will include nuclear power with some solar.
Consumers in Scotland are not isolated; we get the same electricity as the rest of GB [the UK]. Nor, contrary to what some companies claim, can the source of the electricity we received be identified as coming from a particular generation source.
Sarah Baillie claimed that 'Scotland now meets [all?] its electricity needs from renewables' ('A turning point on road to net zero', [Friends of the Scotsman], 31 January).
This is both incorrect and misleading. Almost every consumer of electricity in Great Britain (GB) receives power from the National (Electricity) Grid which is fed by various generators. As I write, only 50.8 per cent derives from renewables; 33.4 from burning fossil fuels and 15.7 per cent from low carbon sources. The latter will include nuclear power with some solar.
Consumers in Scotland are not isolated; we get the same electricity as the rest of GB [the UK]. Nor, contrary to what some companies claim, can the source of the electricity we received be identified as coming from a particular generation source.
To The Scotsman (29 Jan 2022) published 31 Jan 2022
MSP Liam Kerr did well to explode the myth that nuclear power is expensive but then claims that onshore wind farms are 'part of the solution' ('SNP is wrong to pour scorn on a move to low-carbon nuclear', 28 January).
Nuclear power provides clean base-load electricity but cannot cope with daily variations in demand. Nor can unreliable wind farms; they are not the partner than nuclear requires to keep the electricity grid stable.
Gas turbines can meet the excess demand but they burn a fossil fuel. Pumped storage can meet a short term hike in demand but there is not enough of it. Tidal power is reliable and might be used for this purpose but again there is too little. Imports and battery storage might be considered. What would be the best partner for nuclear to keep the lights on without damaging the atmosphere?
MSP Liam Kerr did well to explode the myth that nuclear power is expensive but then claims that onshore wind farms are 'part of the solution' ('SNP is wrong to pour scorn on a move to low-carbon nuclear', 28 January).
Nuclear power provides clean base-load electricity but cannot cope with daily variations in demand. Nor can unreliable wind farms; they are not the partner than nuclear requires to keep the electricity grid stable.
Gas turbines can meet the excess demand but they burn a fossil fuel. Pumped storage can meet a short term hike in demand but there is not enough of it. Tidal power is reliable and might be used for this purpose but again there is too little. Imports and battery storage might be considered. What would be the best partner for nuclear to keep the lights on without damaging the atmosphere?
To The Scotsman (26 Jan 2022) not published
While attention is on Ukraine, it should be noted that Russia persists in attempting to interfere with British military actions nearer home.
Channel 5 TV is presently showing the missions of HMS Northumberland, a type 23 frigate currently on deployment in UK waters. In every episode, the ship has to deal with Russian interference of one kind or another. On one occasion, a Russian submarine deliberately damaged the ship's sonar which made it impossible to track the submarine further. The mission then had to be abandoned. It was thought that the submarine was intent on damaging seabed cables vital for UK communications.
Frequently news items report approaches to UK airspace by Russian TU95 (Bear) bombers, one of which buzzed the Northumberland.
While attention is on Ukraine, it should be noted that Russia persists in attempting to interfere with British military actions nearer home.
Channel 5 TV is presently showing the missions of HMS Northumberland, a type 23 frigate currently on deployment in UK waters. In every episode, the ship has to deal with Russian interference of one kind or another. On one occasion, a Russian submarine deliberately damaged the ship's sonar which made it impossible to track the submarine further. The mission then had to be abandoned. It was thought that the submarine was intent on damaging seabed cables vital for UK communications.
Frequently news items report approaches to UK airspace by Russian TU95 (Bear) bombers, one of which buzzed the Northumberland.
To The Scotsman (25 Jan 2022) not published
While attention is on Ukraine, it should be noted that Russia persists in attempting to interfere with British military actions nearer home.
Channel 5 TV is presently showing the adventures of HMS Northumberland, in every episode of which there is Russian interference of one kind or another. On one occasion, a Russian submarine deliberately damaged the ship's sonar which made it impossible to track the submarine further. The mission then had to be abandoned. It was thought that the submarine was intent on damaging seabed cables vital for UK communications.
Frequently news items report approaches to UK airspace by Russian bear bombers, one of which buzzed the Northumberland.
While attention is on Ukraine, it should be noted that Russia persists in attempting to interfere with British military actions nearer home.
Channel 5 TV is presently showing the adventures of HMS Northumberland, in every episode of which there is Russian interference of one kind or another. On one occasion, a Russian submarine deliberately damaged the ship's sonar which made it impossible to track the submarine further. The mission then had to be abandoned. It was thought that the submarine was intent on damaging seabed cables vital for UK communications.
Frequently news items report approaches to UK airspace by Russian bear bombers, one of which buzzed the Northumberland.
To The Scotsman (24 Jan 2022) not published
So Ardeer is being considered for the site of a prototype nuclear fusion reactor ('Scots site on fusion power short list', 22 January).
However, surely the anti-nuclear SNP government will not allow that. Or is nuclear fusion somehow preferable to nuclear fission? If so, I look forward to the explanation.
So Ardeer is being considered for the site of a prototype nuclear fusion reactor ('Scots site on fusion power short list', 22 January).
However, surely the anti-nuclear SNP government will not allow that. Or is nuclear fusion somehow preferable to nuclear fission? If so, I look forward to the explanation.
To Edinburgh Evening News (22 Jan 2022) not published
I was astounded to see Susan FG Forde (Letters, 21 January) calling for pumped storage hydro stations to run 'all the time'. Does she not understand that such schemes can only run until their top reservoir is empty, after which they need to take electricity from the grid to pump water back up to the reservoir. The Cruachan station can only run for 22 hours at a time. Even then it is required to keep enough water to run for 12-hours should the grid require a 'black start' after collapse.
The only other major pumped storage station in Scotland is that at Foyers on Loch Ness, which is actually combined pumped storage and conventional hydro. There are other smaller stations.
Originally designed to take surplus night-time electricity from nuclear power stations, pumped storage can now take surplus electricity from wind farms. However their total contribution to the grid is marginal.
I was astounded to see Susan FG Forde (Letters, 21 January) calling for pumped storage hydro stations to run 'all the time'. Does she not understand that such schemes can only run until their top reservoir is empty, after which they need to take electricity from the grid to pump water back up to the reservoir. The Cruachan station can only run for 22 hours at a time. Even then it is required to keep enough water to run for 12-hours should the grid require a 'black start' after collapse.
The only other major pumped storage station in Scotland is that at Foyers on Loch Ness, which is actually combined pumped storage and conventional hydro. There are other smaller stations.
Originally designed to take surplus night-time electricity from nuclear power stations, pumped storage can now take surplus electricity from wind farms. However their total contribution to the grid is marginal.
To The Scotsman (21 Jan 2022) not published
I was astounded to see Susan FG Forde (Letters, 21 January) calling for pumped storage hydro stations to run 'all the time'. Does she not understand that such schemes can only run until their top reservoir is empty, after which they need to take electricity from the grid to pump water back up to the reservoir. The Cruachan station can only run for 22 hours at a time. Even then it is required to keep enough water to run for 12-hours should the grid require a 'black start' after collapse.
The only other major pumped storage station in Scotland is that at Foyers on Loch Ness, which is actually combined pumped storage and conventional hydro. There are other smaller stations.
Originally designed to take surplus night-time electricity from nuclear power stations, pumped storage can now take surplus electricity from wind farms. However their total contribution to the grid is marginal.
I was astounded to see Susan FG Forde (Letters, 21 January) calling for pumped storage hydro stations to run 'all the time'. Does she not understand that such schemes can only run until their top reservoir is empty, after which they need to take electricity from the grid to pump water back up to the reservoir. The Cruachan station can only run for 22 hours at a time. Even then it is required to keep enough water to run for 12-hours should the grid require a 'black start' after collapse.
The only other major pumped storage station in Scotland is that at Foyers on Loch Ness, which is actually combined pumped storage and conventional hydro. There are other smaller stations.
Originally designed to take surplus night-time electricity from nuclear power stations, pumped storage can now take surplus electricity from wind farms. However their total contribution to the grid is marginal.
To The Sunday Times (17 Jan 2022) not published
Will retrofitting every UK home tackle climate change ('It's as serious as the blitz', Home 16 January)? If that means 'will it make any difference to global warming?' then the answer is 'No'!
Every home should be properly insulated if only for comfort and economy, but even if every home in the world were so insulated, it would make little difference to our warming planet. So why does Insulate Britain think it would? Anything the the UK does is trivial on a global scale.
In any case, how does IB think it would work? A lot of electricity now comes from generation methods (renewables, nuclear, etc) that do not emit greenhouse gases. Heating by gas should be replaced by burning hydrogen. Campaign for that and more nuclear power instead.
Will retrofitting every UK home tackle climate change ('It's as serious as the blitz', Home 16 January)? If that means 'will it make any difference to global warming?' then the answer is 'No'!
Every home should be properly insulated if only for comfort and economy, but even if every home in the world were so insulated, it would make little difference to our warming planet. So why does Insulate Britain think it would? Anything the the UK does is trivial on a global scale.
In any case, how does IB think it would work? A lot of electricity now comes from generation methods (renewables, nuclear, etc) that do not emit greenhouse gases. Heating by gas should be replaced by burning hydrogen. Campaign for that and more nuclear power instead.
To The Scotsman (10 Jan 2022) not published
Tim Flinn (Letters, 10 January) claims that nuclear power is 'the most...expensive domestic fuel in regular use'. I should like to see his justification for that claim as several international studies have shown that this is not the case. In 2014, the US Energy Information Administration concluded that the levelised cost of electricity from new nuclear stations was 96$/megawatt-hour, between that from natural gas at $64.4 and solar power at $130. Mr Flinn should also know that the cost of nuclear power includes the decommissioning of the plant: the money being secured in the Nuclear Liabilities Fund. In 2009, the Fund was valued at £8.3 billion.
As for so-called 'nuclear waste', most of it is used fuel rods which mostly contained unused uranium with a bit of plutonium and fission products. There is also a lot of not very dangerous low-level waste from contaminated items. The uranium and plutonium can be recycled although there seem to be no plans to do so. Recycling used fuel could produce hundreds of years of energy from just the uranium. Plutonium could provide energy in fast reactors for a thousand years, creating new fuel in the process.
The fuel rods are taken to Sellafield for storage. This unique UK facility costs about £3 billion/year but is forecast to generate about £5.7 billion between 2018 and 2028 from UK and overseas contracts.
Mr Flinn also claims that nuclear fuel is toxic (an inappropriate term as it relates to poisons) and the waste 'deadly'. The only danger from nuclear fuel and waste is ionising radioactivity, which mainly depends on the half-life. Uranium and plutonium, have such long half-lives that they be handled safely. A kilogram of uranium emits about one third of that from a medical radioisotope. Even a household smoke detectors emit radiation as does our environment and some of our food. The fission products from nuclear activity are only 'deadly' if mishandled and improperly shielded.
Mr Flinn should tell us how we will maintain a reliable supply of electricity and safeguard the environment without nuclear power generation. We cannot rely on renewable generation. If the alternative is power blackouts then the price of generation from nuclear energy is irrelevant and we must meet any cost of waste disposal.
Tim Flinn (Letters, 10 January) claims that nuclear power is 'the most...expensive domestic fuel in regular use'. I should like to see his justification for that claim as several international studies have shown that this is not the case. In 2014, the US Energy Information Administration concluded that the levelised cost of electricity from new nuclear stations was 96$/megawatt-hour, between that from natural gas at $64.4 and solar power at $130. Mr Flinn should also know that the cost of nuclear power includes the decommissioning of the plant: the money being secured in the Nuclear Liabilities Fund. In 2009, the Fund was valued at £8.3 billion.
As for so-called 'nuclear waste', most of it is used fuel rods which mostly contained unused uranium with a bit of plutonium and fission products. There is also a lot of not very dangerous low-level waste from contaminated items. The uranium and plutonium can be recycled although there seem to be no plans to do so. Recycling used fuel could produce hundreds of years of energy from just the uranium. Plutonium could provide energy in fast reactors for a thousand years, creating new fuel in the process.
The fuel rods are taken to Sellafield for storage. This unique UK facility costs about £3 billion/year but is forecast to generate about £5.7 billion between 2018 and 2028 from UK and overseas contracts.
Mr Flinn also claims that nuclear fuel is toxic (an inappropriate term as it relates to poisons) and the waste 'deadly'. The only danger from nuclear fuel and waste is ionising radioactivity, which mainly depends on the half-life. Uranium and plutonium, have such long half-lives that they be handled safely. A kilogram of uranium emits about one third of that from a medical radioisotope. Even a household smoke detectors emit radiation as does our environment and some of our food. The fission products from nuclear activity are only 'deadly' if mishandled and improperly shielded.
Mr Flinn should tell us how we will maintain a reliable supply of electricity and safeguard the environment without nuclear power generation. We cannot rely on renewable generation. If the alternative is power blackouts then the price of generation from nuclear energy is irrelevant and we must meet any cost of waste disposal.
To The Scotsman (8 Jan 2022) not published
Would you publish letter from people claiming that the Earth is flat, or the centre of the universe, or only 6000 years old? One hopes not, based on the fact that science has shown all these ideas to be myths. How about letters claiming that the last US election was a fraud and that Donald Trump won? How about letters claiming that Covid-19 is a myth?
Perhaps you get some along these lines but I trust that common sense has prevailed to prevent their publication.
So why publish letters from Charles Wardrop (most recent on 6 January), who, while appearing to accept that climate change is happening, wants us to believe that the Sun, not CO2, is the cause. He has also propagated the myth that cosmic rays are involved. Unfortunately you have not always printed my responses explaining his error.
He is wasting everyone's time. Some issues are controversial, justifying comments on both sides, but global warming is not one of them. It is the most serious and urgent problem facing humanity without, at present, any sign of being ameliorated.
Do you not accept the scientific consensus, represented by the (UN) International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has made it clear that global warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions over at least the last century and a half. Do you have some reason to doubt that paradigm? If not I suggest that you stop giving a platform to people who are either climate change deniers or who doubt the IPCC's conclusions.
Would you publish letter from people claiming that the Earth is flat, or the centre of the universe, or only 6000 years old? One hopes not, based on the fact that science has shown all these ideas to be myths. How about letters claiming that the last US election was a fraud and that Donald Trump won? How about letters claiming that Covid-19 is a myth?
Perhaps you get some along these lines but I trust that common sense has prevailed to prevent their publication.
So why publish letters from Charles Wardrop (most recent on 6 January), who, while appearing to accept that climate change is happening, wants us to believe that the Sun, not CO2, is the cause. He has also propagated the myth that cosmic rays are involved. Unfortunately you have not always printed my responses explaining his error.
He is wasting everyone's time. Some issues are controversial, justifying comments on both sides, but global warming is not one of them. It is the most serious and urgent problem facing humanity without, at present, any sign of being ameliorated.
Do you not accept the scientific consensus, represented by the (UN) International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has made it clear that global warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions over at least the last century and a half. Do you have some reason to doubt that paradigm? If not I suggest that you stop giving a platform to people who are either climate change deniers or who doubt the IPCC's conclusions.
To The Scotsman (7 Jan 2022) not published
Charles Wardrop is obsessed with the idea that climate change is solely due to solar activity and that CO2 is not responsible (Letter, 6 January).
Certainly the sun is vital to all life on Earth and it is responsible for global warming insofar as it provides the heat that greenhouse gases allow. CO2 and methane combine with increased water vapour, also a greenhouse gas, to raise the Earth's temperature. However, we have released too much CO2 and driven the temperature up beyond the normal level. This will continue until we do something to halt the rise. Without preventative action in the next century the Earth will become uninhabitable, an unbearable hothouse.
It's not the sun that has brought this situation about; it's mankind's irresponsible burning of fossil fuels and the release of uncontrolled CO2. It is we who are in control.
To The Scotsman (6 Jan 2022) not published
Charles Wardrop is obsessed with trying to prove that climate change is solely due to solar activity and that CO2 is not responsible (Letter, 6 January).
Certainly the sun is vital to all life on Earth and it is responsible for global warming insofar as it provides the heat that greenhouse gases allow. But CO2 and methane combine with increased water vapour, also a greenhouse gas, to raise the Earth's temperature. Without preventative action in the next century the Earth will become uninhabitable, an unbearable hothouse.
It's not the sun that has brought this situation about; it's mankind's irresponsible burning of fossil fuels and the release of uncontrolled CO2. It is we who are in control.
Charles Wardrop is obsessed with the idea that climate change is solely due to solar activity and that CO2 is not responsible (Letter, 6 January).
Certainly the sun is vital to all life on Earth and it is responsible for global warming insofar as it provides the heat that greenhouse gases allow. CO2 and methane combine with increased water vapour, also a greenhouse gas, to raise the Earth's temperature. However, we have released too much CO2 and driven the temperature up beyond the normal level. This will continue until we do something to halt the rise. Without preventative action in the next century the Earth will become uninhabitable, an unbearable hothouse.
It's not the sun that has brought this situation about; it's mankind's irresponsible burning of fossil fuels and the release of uncontrolled CO2. It is we who are in control.
To The Scotsman (6 Jan 2022) not published
Charles Wardrop is obsessed with trying to prove that climate change is solely due to solar activity and that CO2 is not responsible (Letter, 6 January).
Certainly the sun is vital to all life on Earth and it is responsible for global warming insofar as it provides the heat that greenhouse gases allow. But CO2 and methane combine with increased water vapour, also a greenhouse gas, to raise the Earth's temperature. Without preventative action in the next century the Earth will become uninhabitable, an unbearable hothouse.
It's not the sun that has brought this situation about; it's mankind's irresponsible burning of fossil fuels and the release of uncontrolled CO2. It is we who are in control.
To The Scotsman (2 Jan 2022) not published
Whoohoo! Jesus is two thousand and twenty-two years old, or so Christians believe and we all sort of acknowledge that in our year numbering system. However, anyone who believes that he is still alive needs a reality check.
The evidence in the gospels is that Jesus died during crucifixion, but not from it, in 33. Told that he was dead after only a few hours, a suspicious Roman guard speared him with his lance (see John 19:33-5). Jesus could not have survived that and, pace some superstitious stories, he was not seen again.
Whoohoo! Jesus is two thousand and twenty-two years old, or so Christians believe and we all sort of acknowledge that in our year numbering system. However, anyone who believes that he is still alive needs a reality check.
The evidence in the gospels is that Jesus died during crucifixion, but not from it, in 33. Told that he was dead after only a few hours, a suspicious Roman guard speared him with his lance (see John 19:33-5). Jesus could not have survived that and, pace some superstitious stories, he was not seen again.
To Edinburgh Evening News (2 Jan 2022)
It's bad enough to see Russel Grant's 'Your stars' every day but now you've printed two whole pages of 'Predictions for the year ahead' (1 January).
Surely you know that there is no scientific basis for astrology and that people can be misled about their future. I read my mine and found it completely irrelevant. I urge you to abandon this practice and, if you won't, at least add a warning that such predictions are entirely speculative and random.
It's bad enough to see Russel Grant's 'Your stars' every day but now you've printed two whole pages of 'Predictions for the year ahead' (1 January).
Surely you know that there is no scientific basis for astrology and that people can be misled about their future. I read my mine and found it completely irrelevant. I urge you to abandon this practice and, if you won't, at least add a warning that such predictions are entirely speculative and random.