Letters 2022 - underlining indicates deletion by editor; square brackets indicate insertion.
To The Sunday Times (17 Jan 2022)
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.