Letters 2022 - underlining indicates deletion by editor; square brackets indicate insertion.
To Edinburgh Evening News (25 Nov 2022) published 28 Nov 2022
Leaving off house heating to save money (your report 24 November) risks the development of black mould on cold surfaces if other household activities like showering and cooking proceed as normal. This could push the relative humidity over 70 per cent, allowing the fungus to germinate.
This can be avoided if extract fans are fitted and used in kitchens and bathrooms (in the latter they should be linked to the light circuit with a built-in over-run of 10 minutes). Modern houses do not have enough natural ventilation.
Leaving off house heating to save money (your report 24 November) risks the development of black mould on cold surfaces if other household activities like showering and cooking proceed as normal. This could push the relative humidity over 70 per cent, allowing the fungus to germinate.
This can be avoided if extract fans are fitted and used in kitchens and bathrooms (in the latter they should be linked to the light circuit with a built-in over-run of 10 minutes). Modern houses do not have enough natural ventilation.
To The Scotsman (23 Nov 2022) published 26 Nov 2022
Leaving the house heating off (your report on 22 November) in cold weather with no change in other activities like cooking and showering risks the development of black mould as humid air condensed on cold surfaces.
At least fit and use extract fans in kitchens and bathrooms to get rid of excess water vapour. However a certain level heating is required unless no water vapour is going to be generated. Try to keep the relative humidity below 70 per cent.
Leaving the house heating off (your report on 22 November) in cold weather with no change in other activities like cooking and showering risks the development of black mould as humid air condensed on cold surfaces.
At least fit and use extract fans in kitchens and bathrooms to get rid of excess water vapour. However a certain level heating is required unless no water vapour is going to be generated. Try to keep the relative humidity below 70 per cent.
To The Times (21 Nov 2022) not published
The occupants of a dwelling plagued by black mould (Stachybotrys chartum, a microfungus) are probably unaware that their lifestyle is probably the cause ('Rising Damp', 19 November). It's not 'rising damp'.
It's cause is a high relative humidity (over 70%) and 'cold 'surfaces where moist are can condense. Actually the mould can occur on any surface with a temperature between 0 and 37C. Good structural insulation is required to try to keep the inside surface of external walls and ceilings warm. People who now limit their heating to save money risk black mould.
The mould's spores are omnipresent and only need the above conditions to reproduce. Unfortunately, modern homes without open fires and flues, lack the ventilation necessary to remove the water vapour generated in kitchens and bathrooms (especially showers). Consequently it is necessary to provide mechanical ventilation in those rooms where water vapour is generated. Extract fans should be provided and used in both kitchens and bathrooms, the latter linked to the light switch with an overrun of 10 mins or so. Occupants can also help by not drying clothes in the house. Tumble dryers are OK if vented outside. Dehumidifiers are largely ineffective.
The occupants of a dwelling plagued by black mould (Stachybotrys chartum, a microfungus) are probably unaware that their lifestyle is probably the cause ('Rising Damp', 19 November). It's not 'rising damp'.
It's cause is a high relative humidity (over 70%) and 'cold 'surfaces where moist are can condense. Actually the mould can occur on any surface with a temperature between 0 and 37C. Good structural insulation is required to try to keep the inside surface of external walls and ceilings warm. People who now limit their heating to save money risk black mould.
The mould's spores are omnipresent and only need the above conditions to reproduce. Unfortunately, modern homes without open fires and flues, lack the ventilation necessary to remove the water vapour generated in kitchens and bathrooms (especially showers). Consequently it is necessary to provide mechanical ventilation in those rooms where water vapour is generated. Extract fans should be provided and used in both kitchens and bathrooms, the latter linked to the light switch with an overrun of 10 mins or so. Occupants can also help by not drying clothes in the house. Tumble dryers are OK if vented outside. Dehumidifiers are largely ineffective.
To The Sunday Times (14 Nov 2022) not published
Alex Bell claims that 'needy pensioners would be better served by a means-tested, higher payout' (13 November).
Means-testing is administratively complicated and expensive. Certainly give pensioners like me a 'higher payout' but then make it subject to income tax. That's progressive and fair. Surely that's not a new tax, just a new application.
Alex Bell claims that 'needy pensioners would be better served by a means-tested, higher payout' (13 November).
Means-testing is administratively complicated and expensive. Certainly give pensioners like me a 'higher payout' but then make it subject to income tax. That's progressive and fair. Surely that's not a new tax, just a new application.
To The Scotsman (14 Nov 2022) not published
You claim that the 'armistice' (sic) ended the First World War (Leader, 11 November). In fact the War did not end until the Treaty of Versailles was signed on 28 June 1919. The Armistice merely paused fighting.
It was mere coincidence that the Armistice occurred at 11am UK time. All international agreements involving a major change take place either at noon or midnight (India gained independence 'at the midnight hour'). The Armistice was signed at 5:45am to take effect from noon on 11 November 1918.
You claim that the 'armistice' (sic) ended the First World War (Leader, 11 November). In fact the War did not end until the Treaty of Versailles was signed on 28 June 1919. The Armistice merely paused fighting.
It was mere coincidence that the Armistice occurred at 11am UK time. All international agreements involving a major change take place either at noon or midnight (India gained independence 'at the midnight hour'). The Armistice was signed at 5:45am to take effect from noon on 11 November 1918.
To The Scotsman (11 Nov 2022) published 14 Nov 2022
You report that MSP Shona Robison claims that the new Bill of Rights will 'ensure the Westminster Parliament has the last word on the laws of this land' (11 November).
I checked the draft Bill but could not find that intention. Indeed it emphasises that the UK Supreme Court has the last word on law. Predictably and regrettably it removes any involvement of the European Court of Human Rights.
Parliaments make laws but they do not interpret them.
You report that MSP Shona Robison claims that the new Bill of Rights will 'ensure the Westminster Parliament has the last word on the laws of this land' (11 November).
I checked the draft Bill but could not find that intention. Indeed it emphasises that the UK Supreme Court has the last word on law. Predictably and regrettably it removes any involvement of the European Court of Human Rights.
Parliaments make laws but they do not interpret them.
To The Sunday Times (31 Oct 2022) not published
Alex Bell enthuses re nuclear fusion (30 October). However, he ought to know that, if it works, the electricity produced will be very expensive (the plant is very expensive). Meanwhile the electricity from existing fission reactors is compatible with electricity from fossil fuel plants. Are we willing to pay the price? Can we afford it?
The idea that fusion produces no radioactive waste is misplaced; as the core needs replacing due to deterioration, it's removed parts will be highly radioactive. His claim that fission is 'very dangerous' is inappropriate; the nuclear industry operates at the highest safety standards.
Alex Bell enthuses re nuclear fusion (30 October). However, he ought to know that, if it works, the electricity produced will be very expensive (the plant is very expensive). Meanwhile the electricity from existing fission reactors is compatible with electricity from fossil fuel plants. Are we willing to pay the price? Can we afford it?
The idea that fusion produces no radioactive waste is misplaced; as the core needs replacing due to deterioration, it's removed parts will be highly radioactive. His claim that fission is 'very dangerous' is inappropriate; the nuclear industry operates at the highest safety standards.
To Scotland on Sunday (31 Oct 2022) published 6 Nov 2022
Your call for a general election (GE) now [[is misconceived] (Leader, 30 October) is misconceived. No matter what the public think, GE's are not held to elect a prime minister; they elect a party, via local candidates.
In any case, holding a general election now would paralyse government for a month. Also GE's are [They are also] expensive: the 2015 GE cost nearly £115 million. Holding one now would probably cost about £126 million, money that is urgently needed to help solve the economic crisis. At this time of financial stringency it would be folly to waste that money unnecessarily.
The new PM put it well by declaring that the mandate the party earned in 2019 'is not the sole property of any one individual. It is a mandate that belongs to and unites all of us'. He is right. Changing a PM is for a party to decide, not the public. PM's do not require a mandate from the electorate because it's their party's policies that matter. Rishi Sunak must be left to work out how to solve our various crises; he and his party will face the ultimate judgement when he has to call the next GE [general election] within the next two years.
I am not a member of any political party and take the same view if Labour were in power and changed their PM.
Your call for a general election (GE) now [[is misconceived] (Leader, 30 October) is misconceived. No matter what the public think, GE's are not held to elect a prime minister; they elect a party, via local candidates.
In any case, holding a general election now would paralyse government for a month. Also GE's are [They are also] expensive: the 2015 GE cost nearly £115 million. Holding one now would probably cost about £126 million, money that is urgently needed to help solve the economic crisis. At this time of financial stringency it would be folly to waste that money unnecessarily.
The new PM put it well by declaring that the mandate the party earned in 2019 'is not the sole property of any one individual. It is a mandate that belongs to and unites all of us'. He is right. Changing a PM is for a party to decide, not the public. PM's do not require a mandate from the electorate because it's their party's policies that matter. Rishi Sunak must be left to work out how to solve our various crises; he and his party will face the ultimate judgement when he has to call the next GE [general election] within the next two years.
I am not a member of any political party and take the same view if Labour were in power and changed their PM.
To The Scotsman (27 Oct 2022) not published
Paul Lewis (Letter, 27 October) is right to point out that holding a general election now would paralyse government for a month. Moreover, GE's are expensive: the 2015 GE cost nearly £115 million. Holding one now would probably cost about £126 million, money that is urgently needed to help solve the economic crisis. At this time of financial stringency it would be folly to waste that money unnecessarily.
Yet The Scotsman and others persist in calling for an immediate general election (Leader, 25 October). As I have pointed out (Letter, 24 October), such elections, no matter what people think, are not intended to elect a prime minister; they elect MPs who choose their own leader as PM. The new PM put it well by declaring that the mandate the party earned in 2019 'is not the sole property of any one individual. It is a mandate that belongs to and unites all of us'.
A GE is not needed now just because the governing party has changed its leader. PM's do not require a mandate from the electorate because it's their party's policies that matter. Calling Rishi Sunak 'unelected' is foolish and wrong-headed. He should be left to work out how to solve our various crises and he and his party will face the ultimate judgement when he has to call the next GE.
I am not a member of any political party and take the same view if Labour were in power.
Paul Lewis (Letter, 27 October) is right to point out that holding a general election now would paralyse government for a month. Moreover, GE's are expensive: the 2015 GE cost nearly £115 million. Holding one now would probably cost about £126 million, money that is urgently needed to help solve the economic crisis. At this time of financial stringency it would be folly to waste that money unnecessarily.
Yet The Scotsman and others persist in calling for an immediate general election (Leader, 25 October). As I have pointed out (Letter, 24 October), such elections, no matter what people think, are not intended to elect a prime minister; they elect MPs who choose their own leader as PM. The new PM put it well by declaring that the mandate the party earned in 2019 'is not the sole property of any one individual. It is a mandate that belongs to and unites all of us'.
A GE is not needed now just because the governing party has changed its leader. PM's do not require a mandate from the electorate because it's their party's policies that matter. Calling Rishi Sunak 'unelected' is foolish and wrong-headed. He should be left to work out how to solve our various crises and he and his party will face the ultimate judgement when he has to call the next GE.
I am not a member of any political party and take the same view if Labour were in power.
To The Scotsman (26 Oct 2022) not published
The Scotsman and others persist in calling for an immediate general election (Leader, 25 October). As I have pointed out (Letter, 24 October), such elections, no matter what people think, are not intended to elect a prime minister; they elect MPs who choose their own leader as PM. The new PM put it well by declaring that the mandate the party earned in 2019 'is not the sole property of any one individual. It is a mandate that belongs to and unites all of us'.
In any case, GE's are expensive: the 2015 GE cost nearly £115 million. At this time of financial stringency it would be folly to waste that money unnecessarily. A GE is not needed now just because the governing party has changed its leader. PM's do not require a mandate from the electorate because it's their party's policies that matter. Calling Rishi Sunak 'unelected' is foolish and wrong-headed. He should be left to work out how to solve our various crises and he and his party will face the ultimate judgement when he has to call the next GE.
I am not a member of any political party.
The Scotsman and others persist in calling for an immediate general election (Leader, 25 October). As I have pointed out (Letter, 24 October), such elections, no matter what people think, are not intended to elect a prime minister; they elect MPs who choose their own leader as PM. The new PM put it well by declaring that the mandate the party earned in 2019 'is not the sole property of any one individual. It is a mandate that belongs to and unites all of us'.
In any case, GE's are expensive: the 2015 GE cost nearly £115 million. At this time of financial stringency it would be folly to waste that money unnecessarily. A GE is not needed now just because the governing party has changed its leader. PM's do not require a mandate from the electorate because it's their party's policies that matter. Calling Rishi Sunak 'unelected' is foolish and wrong-headed. He should be left to work out how to solve our various crises and he and his party will face the ultimate judgement when he has to call the next GE.
I am not a member of any political party.
To The Scotsman (25 Oct 2022) not publsihed
The Scotsman persists in calling for an immediate general election (Leader, 25 October). As I have pointed out (Letter, 24 October), such elections, no matter what people think, are not intended to elect a prime minister; they elect MPs who choose their own leader as PM. In any case, GE's are expensive: the 2015 GE cost nearly £115 million. At this time of financial stringency it would be folly to waste that money unnecessarily. A GE is not needed now just because the governing party has changed its leader. PM's do not require a mandate from the electorate because it's their party's policies that matter. Calling Rishi Sunak 'unelected' is stupid and wrong-headed. He should be left to work out how to solve our various crises and he and his party will face the ultimate judgement when he has to call the next GE.
I am not a member of any political party.
The Scotsman persists in calling for an immediate general election (Leader, 25 October). As I have pointed out (Letter, 24 October), such elections, no matter what people think, are not intended to elect a prime minister; they elect MPs who choose their own leader as PM. In any case, GE's are expensive: the 2015 GE cost nearly £115 million. At this time of financial stringency it would be folly to waste that money unnecessarily. A GE is not needed now just because the governing party has changed its leader. PM's do not require a mandate from the electorate because it's their party's policies that matter. Calling Rishi Sunak 'unelected' is stupid and wrong-headed. He should be left to work out how to solve our various crises and he and his party will face the ultimate judgement when he has to call the next GE.
I am not a member of any political party.
To The Scotsman (24 Oct 2022) published 25 Oct 2022
The Scotsman claims that the new PM, now known to be Rishi Sunak, will not have a mandate without a general election (Leader, 24 October).
However, we have a parliamentary not a presidential system. No matter how voters regard an election, we vote for parties and the PM at the time only appears on a ballot paper in his/her own constituency. More precisely, we vote for a local candidate who may represent a political party.
It is for the leader of the party with the most MPs who gets invited by the head of state to form a government and that leader can only lead if he/she commands the support of the House of Commons.
Calls for a general election every time a party appoints a new leader are misconceived and rather mischievous. Mr Sunak has a mandate from his own party and (hopefully) leads that party for the good of the country.
The Scotsman claims that the new PM, now known to be Rishi Sunak, will not have a mandate without a general election (Leader, 24 October).
However, we have a parliamentary not a presidential system. No matter how voters regard an election, we vote for parties and the PM at the time only appears on a ballot paper in his/her own constituency. More precisely, we vote for a local candidate who may represent a political party.
It is for the leader of the party with the most MPs who gets invited by the head of state to form a government and that leader can only lead if he/she commands the support of the House of Commons.
Calls for a general election every time a party appoints a new leader are misconceived and rather mischievous. Mr Sunak has a mandate from his own party and (hopefully) leads that party for the good of the country.
To The Scotsman (19 Oct 2022) published 22 Oct 2022
Since when was it decided that the UK is [a] 'multinational state' (Letter from Alex Orr, 18 October)? The Act of Union of 1707 declared that 'the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall be...for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain;'. Clearly this is intended to be one country, not two countries in some sort of federation.
The Union with Ireland Act of 1800 similarly declared that 'the two said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall,..., and for ever after, be united into one kingdom,...'. The later creation of the Irish free state made no difference to the union with the remainder of Ireland. We are one country--'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', not a collection of separate countries.
Since when was it decided that the UK is [a] 'multinational state' (Letter from Alex Orr, 18 October)? The Act of Union of 1707 declared that 'the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall be...for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain;'. Clearly this is intended to be one country, not two countries in some sort of federation.
The Union with Ireland Act of 1800 similarly declared that 'the two said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall,..., and for ever after, be united into one kingdom,...'. The later creation of the Irish free state made no difference to the union with the remainder of Ireland. We are one country--'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', not a collection of separate countries.
To The Scotsman (16 Oct 2022) published 17 Oct 2022
The Scotsman is alarmed at mortgage interest rates rising to six per cent (Leader, 15 October).
To finance the building of my house in 1965 I borrowed the amount I required at a fixed rate 5-6 per cent, about the bank rate at the time. I only had to pay the interest as the loan was covered by an insurance policy. But I thought nothing of paying that amount.
In his recent book The Price of Time, The Real Story of Interest, Edward Chancellor covers the history of interest and points out how very low rates are unusual and can be a sign of economic problems. In Ancient Greece, the rate was 20 per cent. We need to get used to higher rates, which actually encourage lending. Who wants to lend money when there is little or no return?
The Scotsman is alarmed at mortgage interest rates rising to six per cent (Leader, 15 October).
To finance the building of my house in 1965 I borrowed the amount I required at a fixed rate 5-6 per cent, about the bank rate at the time. I only had to pay the interest as the loan was covered by an insurance policy. But I thought nothing of paying that amount.
In his recent book The Price of Time, The Real Story of Interest, Edward Chancellor covers the history of interest and points out how very low rates are unusual and can be a sign of economic problems. In Ancient Greece, the rate was 20 per cent. We need to get used to higher rates, which actually encourage lending. Who wants to lend money when there is little or no return?
To The Scotsman (11 Oct 2022) published 13 Oct 2022 in Edinburgh Evening News
In an interview on BBC1 on 7 October, Nicola Sturgeon was asked about nuclear power, which the SNP has always opposed while perversely permitting existing power stations to continue in operation. Her reply was that 'It's a highly expensive form of energy'.
Is this now the SNP's chief objection? If she meant the price of the electricity it generates, then she was wrong. Although nuclear's capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants, its fuel costs are a minor proportion of the total generating cost. Consequently nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation and there is no reason to reject it on cost basis.
In an interview on BBC1 on 7 October, Nicola Sturgeon was asked about nuclear power, which the SNP has always opposed while perversely permitting existing power stations to continue in operation. Her reply was that 'It's a highly expensive form of energy'.
Is this now the SNP's chief objection? If she meant the price of the electricity it generates, then she was wrong. Although nuclear's capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants, its fuel costs are a minor proportion of the total generating cost. Consequently nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation and there is no reason to reject it on cost basis.
To The Scotsman (9 Oct 2022) not published
Alastair Stewart draws attention to films which distort reality which can be mistaken for 'gospel' ('Fictionalised reality is leading us astray', 8 October).
People refer to 'gospel truth', yet the Biblical Gospels themselves are works of fiction mixed with an underlying reality which is difficult to extract. They were written by authors, some unknown, eager to put a pro-Roman slant on events so as not to offend the Rome, but also they were misinterpretations of Jesus' life, especially displaying ignorance of his secret plan. Consequently all the films which attempted to portray the gospel story are more or less misleading fiction.
The real story of Jesus can be found in my book 'The Rise and Fall of Jesus' (Tectum 2019).
Alastair Stewart draws attention to films which distort reality which can be mistaken for 'gospel' ('Fictionalised reality is leading us astray', 8 October).
People refer to 'gospel truth', yet the Biblical Gospels themselves are works of fiction mixed with an underlying reality which is difficult to extract. They were written by authors, some unknown, eager to put a pro-Roman slant on events so as not to offend the Rome, but also they were misinterpretations of Jesus' life, especially displaying ignorance of his secret plan. Consequently all the films which attempted to portray the gospel story are more or less misleading fiction.
The real story of Jesus can be found in my book 'The Rise and Fall of Jesus' (Tectum 2019).
To The Sunday Times (26 Sep 2022) not published
Matthew Syed explains how economic growth is dependent on the energy available from various fuels ('Fiddling with tax won't cut it. Our focus must be: energy, energy, energy', 25 September).
The use of fossil fuels did energise the industrial revolution, mainly because the energy density of coal is about 3 times that of wood and oil and gas about 4 times. So what is the next step up to fuel growth?
Clearly it's uranium; it's energy density is about 77 million times that of any fossil fuel. That's why we should be encouraging the development of nuclear power for making electricity.
Matthew Syed explains how economic growth is dependent on the energy available from various fuels ('Fiddling with tax won't cut it. Our focus must be: energy, energy, energy', 25 September).
The use of fossil fuels did energise the industrial revolution, mainly because the energy density of coal is about 3 times that of wood and oil and gas about 4 times. So what is the next step up to fuel growth?
Clearly it's uranium; it's energy density is about 77 million times that of any fossil fuel. That's why we should be encouraging the development of nuclear power for making electricity.
To The Scotsman (23 Sep 2022) published 26 Sep 2022
You [The Scotsman] asked 'Will the mystery [of Nessie] ever be solved?' (22 September)
The tourist industry certainly hopes not and so it did not welcome my explanation 36 years ago in my book The Loch Ness Monster the Evidence (1986, later reprinted by Birlinn).
Reports of a monster are mostly misperceptions with some hoaxes. There is no evidence of any monstrous inhabitant, which, in any case, was always extremely unlikely. The modern myth started in 1933 (pace Adomnan's fanciful tale) and was probably the result of seeing an unusual wake effect. Sometimes large vessels travel along Loch Ness creating a large wake which can be seen and misunderstood in calm weather. My book is now out-of-print.
You [The Scotsman] asked 'Will the mystery [of Nessie] ever be solved?' (22 September)
The tourist industry certainly hopes not and so it did not welcome my explanation 36 years ago in my book The Loch Ness Monster the Evidence (1986, later reprinted by Birlinn).
Reports of a monster are mostly misperceptions with some hoaxes. There is no evidence of any monstrous inhabitant, which, in any case, was always extremely unlikely. The modern myth started in 1933 (pace Adomnan's fanciful tale) and was probably the result of seeing an unusual wake effect. Sometimes large vessels travel along Loch Ness creating a large wake which can be seen and misunderstood in calm weather. My book is now out-of-print.
To The Scotsman (21 Sep 2022) published 22 Sep 2022
Rev David J Nixon thinks that without God (which god would that be?) we lack 'purpose in life' (Scotsman,, 20 September).
Does that mean believing that some unknown entity created the whole massive, perhaps infinite, universe 13.7 billion years ago just so that he could incarnate himself on this small planet to save us from our sins? That's a crazy scenario and Mr Nixon should question his sanity.
The Christian idea of the purpose of life flies in the face of science, which has shown how our universe emerged apparently by chance, as other universes probably do. It has no purpose; it just exists and intelligent life has also emerged by chance (lucky in our case as the odds on it happening were very low). Life has no purpose except to survive and reproduce. We may each give our own lives a purpose and most of us do. Fanciful and superstitious notions are both unnecessary and harmful.
Mr Nixon's belief comes from a gross misunderstanding of Jesus' life and purpose. He could find out what that was in my book 'The Rise and Fall of Jesus'.
Rev David J Nixon thinks that without God (which god would that be?) we lack 'purpose in life' (Scotsman,, 20 September).
Does that mean believing that some unknown entity created the whole massive, perhaps infinite, universe 13.7 billion years ago just so that he could incarnate himself on this small planet to save us from our sins? That's a crazy scenario and Mr Nixon should question his sanity.
The Christian idea of the purpose of life flies in the face of science, which has shown how our universe emerged apparently by chance, as other universes probably do. It has no purpose; it just exists and intelligent life has also emerged by chance (lucky in our case as the odds on it happening were very low). Life has no purpose except to survive and reproduce. We may each give our own lives a purpose and most of us do. Fanciful and superstitious notions are both unnecessary and harmful.
Mr Nixon's belief comes from a gross misunderstanding of Jesus' life and purpose. He could find out what that was in my book 'The Rise and Fall of Jesus'.
To The Scotsman (20 Sep 2022) published 21 Sep 2022
Tim Flinn asks if I know of a country that has invested a capital sum whose compound interest is sufficient to avoid our descendants for the next millennia having to pay taxes to cover the cost of managing 'the [nuclear] wastes we created in keeping our lights on yesterday and today' (Letter,19 September). In fact that is not how long term nuclear waste is managed in any country. In every country with nuclear power the waste is the responsibility of the state, in the UK's case The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. One might ask Mr Flinn who is paying for managing and disposing of all the non-nuclear waste created in the UK (no one apparently). One could also ask him what the cost would be of not having the reliable source of base-load electricity that nuclear power provides (blackouts?). Nuclear waste is a small fraction of all waste and is the only one that it properly managed and stored. Concern on this matter is an overreaction. Mr Flinn needs to understand that the intensity of radioactivity in nuclear waste is inversely proportional to its longevity. Highly radioactive elements have a short half-life and low radioactity ones have a long one. Consequently most radioactivity declines quickly and that which does not is not dangerous. So describing the waste as a problem for 'millenia' is misleading. If anyone wants more detail, it's all avilable in published sources.
Tim Flinn asks if I know of a country that has invested a capital sum whose compound interest is sufficient to avoid our descendants for the next millennia having to pay taxes to cover the cost of managing 'the [nuclear] wastes we created in keeping our lights on yesterday and today' (Letter,19 September). In fact that is not how long term nuclear waste is managed in any country. In every country with nuclear power the waste is the responsibility of the state, in the UK's case The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. One might ask Mr Flinn who is paying for managing and disposing of all the non-nuclear waste created in the UK (no one apparently). One could also ask him what the cost would be of not having the reliable source of base-load electricity that nuclear power provides (blackouts?). Nuclear waste is a small fraction of all waste and is the only one that it properly managed and stored. Concern on this matter is an overreaction. Mr Flinn needs to understand that the intensity of radioactivity in nuclear waste is inversely proportional to its longevity. Highly radioactive elements have a short half-life and low radioactity ones have a long one. Consequently most radioactivity declines quickly and that which does not is not dangerous. So describing the waste as a problem for 'millenia' is misleading. If anyone wants more detail, it's all avilable in published sources.
To The Sunday Times (19 Sep 22) published 25 Sep 2022
In her item re the King's pastiche housing developments ('A Monarch always gets his own way', Home,{last week]), Gabriella Bennett forgot to mention Knockroon in East Ayrshire (Scotland) a development initiated by the former Prince Charles as part of his renovation plans for the nearby Dumfries House estate. It's not going well.
In her item re the King's pastiche housing developments ('A Monarch always gets his own way', Home,{last week]), Gabriella Bennett forgot to mention Knockroon in East Ayrshire (Scotland) a development initiated by the former Prince Charles as part of his renovation plans for the nearby Dumfries House estate. It's not going well.
To The Scotsman (16 Sep 2022) published 17 Sep 2022
Alba MP Kenny MacAskill claimed that fracking and nuclear aren't required or wanted in Scotland (Perspective, 15 September). One could argue against fracking on the basis that it unearths a fossil fuel, although of course such fuel is only a problem when someone burns it without safely disposing of the CO2. True, some greenhouse gases will be emitted in the fracking process, but that applies to all industrial operations. In fact it's doubtful that much methane can be extracted via fracking.
More nuclear power may not be wanted by some but it is certainly required as an environmentally-friendly way to provide base load electricity. Alba's and the SNP's opposition to nuclear is incomprehensible. The idea that it is expensive is a myth. Its cost is competitive with other forms of electricity generation and its system costs are very much lower than for intermittent renewables. The cost of decommissioning and waste disposal is included in its overall cost.
The claim that 97 per cent domestic electricity consumption here came from renewables is misleading. The Scottish Government estimates that, in 2020, only 56 per cent of the electricity consumed here came from renewable sources (30% was from nuclear and 13% from fossil fuels). Mr MacAskill's claim that we can 'supply ourselves almost entirely from locally sourced renewables' is sheer fantasy.
Alba MP Kenny MacAskill claimed that fracking and nuclear aren't required or wanted in Scotland (Perspective, 15 September). One could argue against fracking on the basis that it unearths a fossil fuel, although of course such fuel is only a problem when someone burns it without safely disposing of the CO2. True, some greenhouse gases will be emitted in the fracking process, but that applies to all industrial operations. In fact it's doubtful that much methane can be extracted via fracking.
More nuclear power may not be wanted by some but it is certainly required as an environmentally-friendly way to provide base load electricity. Alba's and the SNP's opposition to nuclear is incomprehensible. The idea that it is expensive is a myth. Its cost is competitive with other forms of electricity generation and its system costs are very much lower than for intermittent renewables. The cost of decommissioning and waste disposal is included in its overall cost.
The claim that 97 per cent domestic electricity consumption here came from renewables is misleading. The Scottish Government estimates that, in 2020, only 56 per cent of the electricity consumed here came from renewable sources (30% was from nuclear and 13% from fossil fuels). Mr MacAskill's claim that we can 'supply ourselves almost entirely from locally sourced renewables' is sheer fantasy.
To The Scotsman (10 Sep 2022) published 12 Sep 2022
It was always regrettable that the late Queen was officially designated 'Elizabeth II'. Everyone, and especially Scots, know that Scotland never had a previous monarch with the regnal name 'Elizabeth'. Consequently some referred to her as 'Elizabeth I & II'. In 1953, the use of 'II' on pillar boxes here caused considerable objection, even public protest, resulting in it being replaced by the Crown of Scotland.
But then the United Kingdom itself had no previous monarch of that name. Created in 1801, at a time when George III was king of Great Britain, Queen Elizabeth was the first monarch of the UK with that name. Consequently she was neither the first nor second 'Elizabeth' and no regnal number should have been applied.
For the same reason, the new king is not the third Charles of the UK, as the two previous monarchs of that name were kings of Great Britain, a state that disappeared when it was subsumed into the UK.
It was always regrettable that the late Queen was officially designated 'Elizabeth II'. Everyone, and especially Scots, know that Scotland never had a previous monarch with the regnal name 'Elizabeth'. Consequently some referred to her as 'Elizabeth I & II'. In 1953, the use of 'II' on pillar boxes here caused considerable objection, even public protest, resulting in it being replaced by the Crown of Scotland.
But then the United Kingdom itself had no previous monarch of that name. Created in 1801, at a time when George III was king of Great Britain, Queen Elizabeth was the first monarch of the UK with that name. Consequently she was neither the first nor second 'Elizabeth' and no regnal number should have been applied.
For the same reason, the new king is not the third Charles of the UK, as the two previous monarchs of that name were kings of Great Britain, a state that disappeared when it was subsumed into the UK.
To The Scotsman (9 Sep 2022) published 10 Sep 2022
Dave Haskell (Letters, 8 September) claims that the Sizewell C nuclear station would be 'foreign-owned', as if that is undesirable (don't we want inward investment in the UK?).
In fact, it looks as if the UK government and EDF will each take a 20 per cent stake and that two leading banks will find the remaining 60 percent from pension and infrastructure specialist funds, some foreign. Sizewell C claims to have 'a long list of investors lining up behind the project' and insists that it 'can deliver long-term inflation-linked reliable returns on investment.'
Of course investors could come from any country and EDF is not wholly owned by the French Government: anyone can buy EDF shares, even Mr Haskell.
Dave Haskell (Letters, 8 September) claims that the Sizewell C nuclear station would be 'foreign-owned', as if that is undesirable (don't we want inward investment in the UK?).
In fact, it looks as if the UK government and EDF will each take a 20 per cent stake and that two leading banks will find the remaining 60 percent from pension and infrastructure specialist funds, some foreign. Sizewell C claims to have 'a long list of investors lining up behind the project' and insists that it 'can deliver long-term inflation-linked reliable returns on investment.'
Of course investors could come from any country and EDF is not wholly owned by the French Government: anyone can buy EDF shares, even Mr Haskell.
To The Scotsman (7 Sep 2022) published 8 Sep 2022
Martyn McLaughlin ('Liz Truss's indyref proposals are a gift to the SNP', 7 September) seems to confuse the electorate with those who vote.
A yes result in Indyref1 required the approval by more than 50 percent of those who vote, not the electorate. It is wrong to make assumptions about of the views of those who don't vote and, for that reason, the UK Government's resurrection of the idea is undemocratic.
All that is needed is the approval of at least two thirds of those voting, as the SNP's own constitution would require for a constitutional change. It is regrettable that previous constitutional referenda in the UK have not demanded this threshold. Breaking up the 315-year-old union of Great Britain is no trivial matter to be settled with a mere 50 per cent plus one. Is Mr McLaughlin against any threshold? Is he an apologist for the SNP?
Martyn McLaughlin ('Liz Truss's indyref proposals are a gift to the SNP', 7 September) seems to confuse the electorate with those who vote.
A yes result in Indyref1 required the approval by more than 50 percent of those who vote, not the electorate. It is wrong to make assumptions about of the views of those who don't vote and, for that reason, the UK Government's resurrection of the idea is undemocratic.
All that is needed is the approval of at least two thirds of those voting, as the SNP's own constitution would require for a constitutional change. It is regrettable that previous constitutional referenda in the UK have not demanded this threshold. Breaking up the 315-year-old union of Great Britain is no trivial matter to be settled with a mere 50 per cent plus one. Is Mr McLaughlin against any threshold? Is he an apologist for the SNP?
To The Scotsman (5 Sep 2022) published 6 Sep 2022
Conor Matchett's column [of](5 September) makes me wonder if he is an SNP member (he should not be). His protest at the idea of demanding a higher standard for [second]another Scottish referendum echoes that of the First Minister.
He calls it 'all they [Tories] have to offer' when in fact it is a radical step forward in making constitutional changes more democratic. I have been calling for a two-thirds majority for any attempt to break up the UK and am pleased to see a change in that direction. Major changes should not be made on an almost even split; that's a recipe for ongoing conflict.
Matchett thinks that there would have been uproar of if these standards had been set for the Brexit referendum, but I suspect that there would have been general agreement that it is sensible safeguard. Leaving (or joining) the EU is a major constitutional step for any state.
Far from this proposal exhibiting 'intellectual bankruptcy within the Conservative Party' (I am not a member); it shows uncharacteristic imagination and sense in dealing with a major problem. I wish there was more of it.
Conor Matchett's column [of](5 September) makes me wonder if he is an SNP member (he should not be). His protest at the idea of demanding a higher standard for [second]another Scottish referendum echoes that of the First Minister.
He calls it 'all they [Tories] have to offer' when in fact it is a radical step forward in making constitutional changes more democratic. I have been calling for a two-thirds majority for any attempt to break up the UK and am pleased to see a change in that direction. Major changes should not be made on an almost even split; that's a recipe for ongoing conflict.
Matchett thinks that there would have been uproar of if these standards had been set for the Brexit referendum, but I suspect that there would have been general agreement that it is sensible safeguard. Leaving (or joining) the EU is a major constitutional step for any state.
Far from this proposal exhibiting 'intellectual bankruptcy within the Conservative Party' (I am not a member); it shows uncharacteristic imagination and sense in dealing with a major problem. I wish there was more of it.
To Edinburgh Evening News (2 Sep 2022) published 6 Sep 2022
You report that the Climate Emergency Response Group wants the Scottish Government to take immediate action to tackle the climate and the cost-of-living crises (1 September).
In fact those are two different crises with no connection that I can see. The present cost-of-living crisis is one that only government, mainly the UK Government, can fix.
The effects of climate change here in Scotland are the result of worldwide climate change, about which Scotland can do little. Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions are relatively trivial: if all of them stopped today, it would make hardly any difference to global warming.
Global warming will not be slowed or stopped by what Scotland does. But that could be achieved if anyone took notice of a plan by Prof Stephen Salter for marine cloud brightening (reflecting more sunlight back into space). Eventually some form of geoengineering will be needed to bring about the urgent action needed.
You report that the Climate Emergency Response Group wants the Scottish Government to take immediate action to tackle the climate and the cost-of-living crises (1 September).
In fact those are two different crises with no connection that I can see. The present cost-of-living crisis is one that only government, mainly the UK Government, can fix.
The effects of climate change here in Scotland are the result of worldwide climate change, about which Scotland can do little. Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions are relatively trivial: if all of them stopped today, it would make hardly any difference to global warming.
Global warming will not be slowed or stopped by what Scotland does. But that could be achieved if anyone took notice of a plan by Prof Stephen Salter for marine cloud brightening (reflecting more sunlight back into space). Eventually some form of geoengineering will be needed to bring about the urgent action needed.
To The Scotsman (27 Aug 2022) published 29 Aug 2022
While criticising the privatisation of water (inter alia) in her column 'Cost-of-living crisis demonstrates the utter folly of "small state" politics', Scottish Perspective [(Scotsman], 26 August[)], Joyce McMillan seems to have forgotten that, in Scotland, water is already nationalised. It is run by Scottish Water, a statutory corporation accountable to the public via the Scottish Government, which receives any profits. It's a model that should be used elsewhere.
While criticising the privatisation of water (inter alia) in her column 'Cost-of-living crisis demonstrates the utter folly of "small state" politics', Scottish Perspective [(Scotsman], 26 August[)], Joyce McMillan seems to have forgotten that, in Scotland, water is already nationalised. It is run by Scottish Water, a statutory corporation accountable to the public via the Scottish Government, which receives any profits. It's a model that should be used elsewhere.
To The Scotsman (19 Aug 2022) not published
Prof Declan Diver's hymn to nuclear fusion ('Nuclear fusion could become a reality here in Scotland', 19 August) deserves a dose of reality, e.g. Lawrence M Lidsky's article 'The trouble with fusion' in a 2015 edition of MIT Technology Review. Lidsky thinks that it will almost certainly be too expensive and unreliable for commercial use. To produce the same power as a fission reactor a fusion reactor would cost ten times as much. Already some consider nuclear (fission) power too expensive; what will they think of much more expensive nuclear fusion? Fusion would also be an engineering nightmare and an accident in such a plant would be an unacceptable financial risk.
Perhaps not everyone realises that, on this planet, we cannot generate the huge pressure that exists at the centre of the sun where fusion takes place at a temperature of 15 million degrees C. To compensate for the lack of pressure a fusion reactor needs to generate a temperature six times higher (about 100 million degrees).
Diver mentions the 'record-breaking test run' at Oxford's JET laboratory. That test ran for just 5 seconds and produced only 11.8 MW of power, the power output of the best wind turbine yet developed. With a steam cycle efficiency of about 56 per cent, only 6.6 MW of useful power could have been extracted from that experiment. I don't know how much power was consumed.
Surprisingly, Diver seems to be suggesting that fusion power be used as a 'supplement' to renewable energy systems when the latter are not available. That would make fusion reactors even more costly to run than they would be running full time, if they ever do. A costly power source only makes economic sense if it runs continuously, as fission reactors do to supply base load. He also seems to think, mistakenly, that 'net-zero' is not only achievable but will solve global warming. The development of fusion reactors will make little difference to the approaching global warming catastrophe.
Diver thinks that a 'runaway meltdown' caused the accident at Chernobyl. In fact an unwise experiment caused a steam explosion that blew the roof off the reactor, resulting in a fuel meltdown as the cooling system was destroyed. Similarly, at Fukushima fuel melted as a result of the loss of power to cool the reactors. That loss was due to a tsunami. In both cases, meltdown was the result not the cause of the accidents. Normally fission reactors have efficient and reliable cooling mechanisms. We should stick with them and develop the fast reactors already pioneered at Dounreay. Fusion is a costly step too far and should be abandoned.
Prof Declan Diver's hymn to nuclear fusion ('Nuclear fusion could become a reality here in Scotland', 19 August) deserves a dose of reality, e.g. Lawrence M Lidsky's article 'The trouble with fusion' in a 2015 edition of MIT Technology Review. Lidsky thinks that it will almost certainly be too expensive and unreliable for commercial use. To produce the same power as a fission reactor a fusion reactor would cost ten times as much. Already some consider nuclear (fission) power too expensive; what will they think of much more expensive nuclear fusion? Fusion would also be an engineering nightmare and an accident in such a plant would be an unacceptable financial risk.
Perhaps not everyone realises that, on this planet, we cannot generate the huge pressure that exists at the centre of the sun where fusion takes place at a temperature of 15 million degrees C. To compensate for the lack of pressure a fusion reactor needs to generate a temperature six times higher (about 100 million degrees).
Diver mentions the 'record-breaking test run' at Oxford's JET laboratory. That test ran for just 5 seconds and produced only 11.8 MW of power, the power output of the best wind turbine yet developed. With a steam cycle efficiency of about 56 per cent, only 6.6 MW of useful power could have been extracted from that experiment. I don't know how much power was consumed.
Surprisingly, Diver seems to be suggesting that fusion power be used as a 'supplement' to renewable energy systems when the latter are not available. That would make fusion reactors even more costly to run than they would be running full time, if they ever do. A costly power source only makes economic sense if it runs continuously, as fission reactors do to supply base load. He also seems to think, mistakenly, that 'net-zero' is not only achievable but will solve global warming. The development of fusion reactors will make little difference to the approaching global warming catastrophe.
Diver thinks that a 'runaway meltdown' caused the accident at Chernobyl. In fact an unwise experiment caused a steam explosion that blew the roof off the reactor, resulting in a fuel meltdown as the cooling system was destroyed. Similarly, at Fukushima fuel melted as a result of the loss of power to cool the reactors. That loss was due to a tsunami. In both cases, meltdown was the result not the cause of the accidents. Normally fission reactors have efficient and reliable cooling mechanisms. We should stick with them and develop the fast reactors already pioneered at Dounreay. Fusion is a costly step too far and should be abandoned.
To The Sunday Times (15 Aug 2022) not published
Your report on water privatisation ('Water leaks, sewage spills and cash: drought by numbers', 14 August) failed to mention that in Scotland water is not privatised. Here it is run by Scottish Water, a statutory corporation accountable to the Scottish Government, which owns it.
In 2021 it was ranked the best UK water company and utility for customer service. It's a model the rest of the UK should adopt.
Your report on water privatisation ('Water leaks, sewage spills and cash: drought by numbers', 14 August) failed to mention that in Scotland water is not privatised. Here it is run by Scottish Water, a statutory corporation accountable to the Scottish Government, which owns it.
In 2021 it was ranked the best UK water company and utility for customer service. It's a model the rest of the UK should adopt.
To The Scotsman (10 Aug 2022) not published
In what way is renewable energy 'secure' (Leader, 10 August)?
Solar energy is daylight-dependent; wind energy is wind-dependent; hydro energy is water-dependent; tidal is tide-dependent. All have intermittent sources (other methods have not proved efficient or been developed). None of them are 'secure' all the time.
Insofar as any method of generating electricity is secure, i.e independent of environmental conditions, only those based on a secure supply of fuel can be regarded as secure. Once burning fossil fuels is ruled out, we are left with nuclear power, an almost inexhaustible source.
In what way is renewable energy 'secure' (Leader, 10 August)?
Solar energy is daylight-dependent; wind energy is wind-dependent; hydro energy is water-dependent; tidal is tide-dependent. All have intermittent sources (other methods have not proved efficient or been developed). None of them are 'secure' all the time.
Insofar as any method of generating electricity is secure, i.e independent of environmental conditions, only those based on a secure supply of fuel can be regarded as secure. Once burning fossil fuels is ruled out, we are left with nuclear power, an almost inexhaustible source.
To The Sunday Times (8 Aug 2022) published by rewritten by ST ed. Not what I wrote.
Matthew Syed ('The future will be cold and dark if we don't have a radical rethink', 7 August Comment,.last week) has fallen for the hype over nuclear fusion. Experiments have only ever shown this to work for a few seconds; it looks like a bridge too far. If it did work, it would be very expensive.
There's no good reason to abandon nuclear fission reactors. In fact we should return to fast breeder reactors and burn all the surplus plutonium stocks. Nuclear waste is a trivial amount compare with all other waste and is safely handled.
Matthew Syed ('The future will be cold and dark if we don't have a radical rethink', 7 August Comment,.last week) has fallen for the hype over nuclear fusion. Experiments have only ever shown this to work for a few seconds; it looks like a bridge too far. If it did work, it would be very expensive.
There's no good reason to abandon nuclear fission reactors. In fact we should return to fast breeder reactors and burn all the surplus plutonium stocks. Nuclear waste is a trivial amount compare with all other waste and is safely handled.
To Edinburgh Evening News (10 Aug 2022) published 12 Aug 2022
The latest bridge closure ('Third "deteriorating" bridge across Water of Leith closed, 9 August) means that all footbridges on Longstone Community Council's boundary are now closed. The footbridge over the Murray Burn at Burnside beside the former Longstone Inn (it leads to Stenhouse and is a right of way) has been closed for several years, allegedly because it is unsafe.
In the latter case, ownership is disputed but denied by the City Council. Consequently LCC has found it difficult to get anything done, but we still try.
The latest bridge closure ('Third "deteriorating" bridge across Water of Leith closed, 9 August) means that all footbridges on Longstone Community Council's boundary are now closed. The footbridge over the Murray Burn at Burnside beside the former Longstone Inn (it leads to Stenhouse and is a right of way) has been closed for several years, allegedly because it is unsafe.
In the latter case, ownership is disputed but denied by the City Council. Consequently LCC has found it difficult to get anything done, but we still try.
To The Times (7 Aug 2022) not publsihed
Matthew Paris ('Show backbone on gay marriage, archbishop', p27 6 August) claimed that Jesus did not 'stare at his shoes and tell people how he empathised'.
When a woman accused of adultery was brought before him (Jn 8), Jesus merely stooped and wrote on the ground, apparently ignoring her accusers, who all then walked away. It looks as if he did empathise; he merely reproached her.
On homosexuality, note that Jesus was in love with his young disciples John (Jn 13;23).
Matthew Paris ('Show backbone on gay marriage, archbishop', p27 6 August) claimed that Jesus did not 'stare at his shoes and tell people how he empathised'.
When a woman accused of adultery was brought before him (Jn 8), Jesus merely stooped and wrote on the ground, apparently ignoring her accusers, who all then walked away. It looks as if he did empathise; he merely reproached her.
On homosexuality, note that Jesus was in love with his young disciples John (Jn 13;23).
To The Scotsman (4 Aug 2022) not published
You are right to claim that the Climate Apocalypse is coming unless if humanity continues to ignore the danger (Leader, 3 August). However, tinkering with minor problems and remedial measures will make little difference. Greenhouse gases continue to accumulate and would do so even if so-called 'net-zero' was reached. That would not reduce the amount of greenhouse gas; stronger steps are required to do that and there's no sign that anyone is willing to sacrifice their standard of living to do so. In fact, it's hard to imagine how civilisation could continue without its reliance on fossil fuels.
However, there is a way to get the global temperature down, even if the level of greenhouse gases remains high. That would require geoengineering. One solution is offered by Prof Steven Salter of The University of Edinburgh. He proposes to manipulate clouds, already a component in Earth's cooling system, to enhance their reflectance. By spraying seas water in fine droplets, more bright clouds can be produced (the smaller the droplets, the brighter the cloud). Prof Salter says that this brightening can moderate hurricanes and El Niño events, alter the gradient of the Indian Ocean dipole, save coral and cool sea water to increase the flow of oxygen to the deep ocean. Given enough time it can reverse rising sea levels. Precipitation can be varied in both directions. Work by Camilla Stjern at the Norwegian Cicero labs showed that it can introduce a trend of increased rain over drought-stricken regions with the reductions being over mid-ocean. Surprisingly little change in cloud brightness would be enough to accomplish this.
Prof Salter only lacks funding. He should be supported and encourage to save us from the Apocalypse.
You are right to claim that the Climate Apocalypse is coming unless if humanity continues to ignore the danger (Leader, 3 August). However, tinkering with minor problems and remedial measures will make little difference. Greenhouse gases continue to accumulate and would do so even if so-called 'net-zero' was reached. That would not reduce the amount of greenhouse gas; stronger steps are required to do that and there's no sign that anyone is willing to sacrifice their standard of living to do so. In fact, it's hard to imagine how civilisation could continue without its reliance on fossil fuels.
However, there is a way to get the global temperature down, even if the level of greenhouse gases remains high. That would require geoengineering. One solution is offered by Prof Steven Salter of The University of Edinburgh. He proposes to manipulate clouds, already a component in Earth's cooling system, to enhance their reflectance. By spraying seas water in fine droplets, more bright clouds can be produced (the smaller the droplets, the brighter the cloud). Prof Salter says that this brightening can moderate hurricanes and El Niño events, alter the gradient of the Indian Ocean dipole, save coral and cool sea water to increase the flow of oxygen to the deep ocean. Given enough time it can reverse rising sea levels. Precipitation can be varied in both directions. Work by Camilla Stjern at the Norwegian Cicero labs showed that it can introduce a trend of increased rain over drought-stricken regions with the reductions being over mid-ocean. Surprisingly little change in cloud brightness would be enough to accomplish this.
Prof Salter only lacks funding. He should be supported and encourage to save us from the Apocalypse.
To The Scotsman (27 Jul 2022) not published
It was bad enough that The Scotsman decided not to print a grid showing the solution to a previous Cryptic Crossword, but now it has no ruined what pleasure I had in attempting to solve it. I won't be alone. The thicker lines in the grid now make all the squares slightly smaller and the grid over-dominates. Please return the grid to its previous thin format.
It was bad enough that The Scotsman decided not to print a grid showing the solution to a previous Cryptic Crossword, but now it has no ruined what pleasure I had in attempting to solve it. I won't be alone. The thicker lines in the grid now make all the squares slightly smaller and the grid over-dominates. Please return the grid to its previous thin format.
To The Scotsman (24 Jul 2022) not published
Bob Ward claims that the impacts of global warming will continue to grow until we reach net-zero global emissions ('If you can't stand the heat...', 23 July)
Net-zero means balancing emissions against carbon sinks, a sensible strategy if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were at the pre-industrial level of 280 parts/million (ppm). But at present the level is nearly 420 ppm. Net-zero with 420 ppm would still result in the global temperature rising, albeit more slowly. What is need to halt warming is a net-negative strategy (more sinks than emissions). However this is even less likely like to occur than net-zero; more drastic strategies need to be deployed.
Bob Ward claims that the impacts of global warming will continue to grow until we reach net-zero global emissions ('If you can't stand the heat...', 23 July)
Net-zero means balancing emissions against carbon sinks, a sensible strategy if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were at the pre-industrial level of 280 parts/million (ppm). But at present the level is nearly 420 ppm. Net-zero with 420 ppm would still result in the global temperature rising, albeit more slowly. What is need to halt warming is a net-negative strategy (more sinks than emissions). However this is even less likely like to occur than net-zero; more drastic strategies need to be deployed.
To The Times (24 Jul 2022) not published
The idea that Sir David King mentions: spraying seawater droplets to form 'bright white clouds' ('The scientists who are inventing a way out of climate change', 23 July) is actually that of Prof Steven Salter of the University of Edinburgh. It's called 'marine cloud brightening' as it can make bright clouds from small droplets (the brightness of clouds is inversely proportional to the size of the droplets).
So far it has not been tested due to lack of investment and support, but it may be the best way to halt global warming and could even reverse it.
Prof Salter says that marine cloud brightening can moderate hurricanes and El Niño events, alter the gradient of the Indian Ocean dipole, save coral and cool sea water to increase the flow of oxygen to the deep ocean. Given enough time it can reverse rising sea levels. Precipitation can be varied in both directions. Work by Camilla Stjern at the Norwegian Cicero labs showed a trend of increased rain over drought-stricken regions with the reductions being over mid-ocean.
Let's get on with it before it's too late.
The idea that Sir David King mentions: spraying seawater droplets to form 'bright white clouds' ('The scientists who are inventing a way out of climate change', 23 July) is actually that of Prof Steven Salter of the University of Edinburgh. It's called 'marine cloud brightening' as it can make bright clouds from small droplets (the brightness of clouds is inversely proportional to the size of the droplets).
So far it has not been tested due to lack of investment and support, but it may be the best way to halt global warming and could even reverse it.
Prof Salter says that marine cloud brightening can moderate hurricanes and El Niño events, alter the gradient of the Indian Ocean dipole, save coral and cool sea water to increase the flow of oxygen to the deep ocean. Given enough time it can reverse rising sea levels. Precipitation can be varied in both directions. Work by Camilla Stjern at the Norwegian Cicero labs showed a trend of increased rain over drought-stricken regions with the reductions being over mid-ocean.
Let's get on with it before it's too late.
To The Scotsman (20 Jul 2022) published 22 Jul 2022
Not for the first time I feel the need to explain that climate change will see the end of civilisation unless drastic action is taken to stop it.
Calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fall on deaf ears and, in any case, are ineffective--in this country anyway. The UK's contribution to global warming is trivial, as are any measures taken here to ameliorate it. But not even the big emitters like China and the USA are doing much; in fact China's are increasing.
There is talk of achieving 'net zero' (balancing emissions against carbon sinks), but don't be fooled. Firstly NZ will not be achieved; there are not enough sinks to balance the increasing emissions.
Secondly, even if achieved, NZ would merely stop more emissions than can be absorbed by sinks. That would still leave too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and the temperature would continue to rise. It would require a halt to all emissions to bring the global temperature down. Of course that in itself would probably mean the end of civilisation; life runs on exploiting fossil fuels.
That's a conundrum: to save civilisation we would need to destroy it! Is there no way out; no hope?
There is one. Global warming has two interacting causes: too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and insolation (solar radiation). If the gases can't be reduced then perhaps insolation can. People scorn geoengineering but in fact humanity is already unconsciously conducting a global experiment which is itself geoengineering.
A technical fix is needed to deal with a technical problem humanity created.
Sunshades in space or chemicals sprayed in the atmosphere have been suggested. But Prof. Steven Salter of the University of Edinburgh suggests using clouds to reflect more radiation than they do normally. He would make clouds more reflective. See reference to that scheme in my blog: Steuart Campbell Science Writer - Blog.
That at least would get the temperature down and give us more time to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and ocean acidification.
It's either that or were doomed.
Not for the first time I feel the need to explain that climate change will see the end of civilisation unless drastic action is taken to stop it.
Calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fall on deaf ears and, in any case, are ineffective--in this country anyway. The UK's contribution to global warming is trivial, as are any measures taken here to ameliorate it. But not even the big emitters like China and the USA are doing much; in fact China's are increasing.
There is talk of achieving 'net zero' (balancing emissions against carbon sinks), but don't be fooled. Firstly NZ will not be achieved; there are not enough sinks to balance the increasing emissions.
Secondly, even if achieved, NZ would merely stop more emissions than can be absorbed by sinks. That would still leave too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and the temperature would continue to rise. It would require a halt to all emissions to bring the global temperature down. Of course that in itself would probably mean the end of civilisation; life runs on exploiting fossil fuels.
That's a conundrum: to save civilisation we would need to destroy it! Is there no way out; no hope?
There is one. Global warming has two interacting causes: too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and insolation (solar radiation). If the gases can't be reduced then perhaps insolation can. People scorn geoengineering but in fact humanity is already unconsciously conducting a global experiment which is itself geoengineering.
A technical fix is needed to deal with a technical problem humanity created.
Sunshades in space or chemicals sprayed in the atmosphere have been suggested. But Prof. Steven Salter of the University of Edinburgh suggests using clouds to reflect more radiation than they do normally. He would make clouds more reflective. See reference to that scheme in my blog: Steuart Campbell Science Writer - Blog.
That at least would get the temperature down and give us more time to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and ocean acidification.
It's either that or were doomed.
To The Scotsman (15 Jul 2022) published 16 Jul 2022
The union of Scotland with England and Wales was achieved by agreement and the consent of the respective parliaments, creating a new joint parliament, each separate parliament voting itself out of existence.
That must mean that the future of Great Britain, now incorporated into the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, can only be determined by that joint parliament (Westminster). It is already agreed that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster. They cannot be determined by a part of GB unilaterally.
The devolved Scottish Parliament may regard itself as representing a quasi-independent country but that is illusory. It cannot have the power to break up the UK any more than say Cornwall or Yorkshire or even Wales.
Consequently the question of whether or not Scotland should separate from England and Wales can only be determined by the Westminster Parliament, where there are representatives of both former states. So why is the Scottish Government not putting down independence motions in Westminster?
The union of Scotland with England and Wales was achieved by agreement and the consent of the respective parliaments, creating a new joint parliament, each separate parliament voting itself out of existence.
That must mean that the future of Great Britain, now incorporated into the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, can only be determined by that joint parliament (Westminster). It is already agreed that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster. They cannot be determined by a part of GB unilaterally.
The devolved Scottish Parliament may regard itself as representing a quasi-independent country but that is illusory. It cannot have the power to break up the UK any more than say Cornwall or Yorkshire or even Wales.
Consequently the question of whether or not Scotland should separate from England and Wales can only be determined by the Westminster Parliament, where there are representatives of both former states. So why is the Scottish Government not putting down independence motions in Westminster?
To The Scotsman (9 Jul 2022) published 11 Jul 2022
If Alastair Dalton (Inside Transport, 8 July) wants to see Scottish buses with a flat fare which alert passengers to the next stops, also announcing it, and bus stops with individual names, he only needs to come to Edinburgh. A ticket machine inside the bus can lead to congestion; better at entry.
If Alastair Dalton (Inside Transport, 8 July) wants to see Scottish buses with a flat fare which alert passengers to the next stops, also announcing it, and bus stops with individual names, he only needs to come to Edinburgh. A ticket machine inside the bus can lead to congestion; better at entry.
To The Scotsman (8 Jul 2022) not published
You report that Nicola Sturgeon insisted that Scotland will have the opportunity to choose independence ('Johnson tells Sturgeon he cannot agree to a referendum', 7 July).
Naturally she does not add that a referendum would also give Scots voters the opportunity to reject independence. Is she not supposed to be the First Minister for all voters, those for and those against independence?
You report that Nicola Sturgeon insisted that Scotland will have the opportunity to choose independence ('Johnson tells Sturgeon he cannot agree to a referendum', 7 July).
Naturally she does not add that a referendum would also give Scots voters the opportunity to reject independence. Is she not supposed to be the First Minister for all voters, those for and those against independence?
To The Scotsman (24 Jun 2022) published 25 Jun 2022
Dr Richard Dixon thinks that renewables and energy efficiency are all we need to keep the lights on ('No place for nuclear in our power plans', Special Report, 23 June)
Studies have shown that energy efficiency measures (mainly increased thermal insulation) do not result in less demand for electricity or gas. Beneficiaries of the increased insulation take the improvement in an increase in comfort, not lower fuel bills. In any case, too many houses in the UK have inadequate insulation, so improving it will take a long time. Meanwhile increased efficiency is theoretical rather than practical.
Renewable methods of generation electricity suffer from intermittency and so are unreliable. The National Electricity Grid requires reliability, which nuclear power can supply.
Dr Dixon points to defects in the Torness reactors, but this is irrelevant to replacement stations which do not have the same configuration. The AGR stations have supplied much-needed electricity since the 1980s.
He also point to the 'toxic legacy of radioactive waste to worry about for thousands of years'. This waste is not toxic, but it can be hazardous, depending on its grading. Only 1 per cent of waste is hazardous and that is carefully handled and stored. Perhaps Dr Dixon does not realise that the longer the half-life of a radioactive element, the less hazardous it is. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of about 24,000 years but it is safe to handle.
As for costs, they would not be so high if the 'linear no threshold' model of radioactive protection was not applied. This discredited model is responsible for much of the needless protection built into modern nuclear power plants. Low level radiation is not harmful. We live in a naturally radioactive environment. Anyway, if we want a reliable electricity supply, the generation of which does not cause greenhouse-gas emissions, we have to pay for it. Eschewing nuclear power is a form of national self-harm.
Dr Richard Dixon thinks that renewables and energy efficiency are all we need to keep the lights on ('No place for nuclear in our power plans', Special Report, 23 June)
Studies have shown that energy efficiency measures (mainly increased thermal insulation) do not result in less demand for electricity or gas. Beneficiaries of the increased insulation take the improvement in an increase in comfort, not lower fuel bills. In any case, too many houses in the UK have inadequate insulation, so improving it will take a long time. Meanwhile increased efficiency is theoretical rather than practical.
Renewable methods of generation electricity suffer from intermittency and so are unreliable. The National Electricity Grid requires reliability, which nuclear power can supply.
Dr Dixon points to defects in the Torness reactors, but this is irrelevant to replacement stations which do not have the same configuration. The AGR stations have supplied much-needed electricity since the 1980s.
He also point to the 'toxic legacy of radioactive waste to worry about for thousands of years'. This waste is not toxic, but it can be hazardous, depending on its grading. Only 1 per cent of waste is hazardous and that is carefully handled and stored. Perhaps Dr Dixon does not realise that the longer the half-life of a radioactive element, the less hazardous it is. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of about 24,000 years but it is safe to handle.
As for costs, they would not be so high if the 'linear no threshold' model of radioactive protection was not applied. This discredited model is responsible for much of the needless protection built into modern nuclear power plants. Low level radiation is not harmful. We live in a naturally radioactive environment. Anyway, if we want a reliable electricity supply, the generation of which does not cause greenhouse-gas emissions, we have to pay for it. Eschewing nuclear power is a form of national self-harm.
To The Scotsman (21 Jun 2022) published 22 Jun 2022
Tim Flinn floats the fanciful idea that we can live as energy after death (Letters, 20 June).
It is true that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can dissipate. Humans gain energy from their food and, as a result of the conversion process; the average adult in typical indoor activities radiates energy at the rate of about 110 W.
When someone dies, the body will gradually cools, radiating away residual energy until it goes completely cold. The radiated energy is lost in the environment and is not available for life of any kind.
Tim Flinn floats the fanciful idea that we can live as energy after death (Letters, 20 June).
It is true that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can dissipate. Humans gain energy from their food and, as a result of the conversion process; the average adult in typical indoor activities radiates energy at the rate of about 110 W.
When someone dies, the body will gradually cools, radiating away residual energy until it goes completely cold. The radiated energy is lost in the environment and is not available for life of any kind.
To Scotland on Sunday (20 Jun 2022)
You report claims that glyphosate 'could [my italics] be harmful to people, animals...' and is 'probably [my italics] carcinogenic' ('Extinction Rebellion activists create buzz at Stirling "insectinction" demo', 19 June).
However, there is no certainty that this herbicide is harmful in the way implied. In fact one study undertaken for US Environmental Protection Agency showed that 'glyphosate does not interact with the pathways necessary to damage the endocrine system' as some have alleged. Nor has it been proved to be carcinogenic. The fact that someone contracts cancer while also being exposed to glyphosate is merely a correlation, not causation.
Ignorance of the effects of glyphosate is being hyped to conclude that it is dangerous to animals, including humans. This is not science.
You report claims that glyphosate 'could [my italics] be harmful to people, animals...' and is 'probably [my italics] carcinogenic' ('Extinction Rebellion activists create buzz at Stirling "insectinction" demo', 19 June).
However, there is no certainty that this herbicide is harmful in the way implied. In fact one study undertaken for US Environmental Protection Agency showed that 'glyphosate does not interact with the pathways necessary to damage the endocrine system' as some have alleged. Nor has it been proved to be carcinogenic. The fact that someone contracts cancer while also being exposed to glyphosate is merely a correlation, not causation.
Ignorance of the effects of glyphosate is being hyped to conclude that it is dangerous to animals, including humans. This is not science.
To The Scotsman (15 Jun 2022) published 18 Jun 2022
Anne Wilson of Solas ('Who is really going to be interested in our digital footprint after a century?', Friends of the Scotsman, 14 June) rehearses the belief of Christians that they will have everlasting life.
'Life after death' makes as much sense as 'life before birth' (pace reincarnation). We live in our bodies and can't survive without them.
Nevertheless, Christians live in the hope they believe Jesus gave them. However, are they aware that the resurrected are to be sexless (Matt 22:30) and will live, not in heaven but on a reconstructed Earth where life is easy with no mountains, spending their time praising God for ever? What a dismal prospect.
In truth this is a Pharisaic delusion derived from other ancient religions. Life here has no purpose other than survival.
Anne Wilson of Solas ('Who is really going to be interested in our digital footprint after a century?', Friends of the Scotsman, 14 June) rehearses the belief of Christians that they will have everlasting life.
'Life after death' makes as much sense as 'life before birth' (pace reincarnation). We live in our bodies and can't survive without them.
Nevertheless, Christians live in the hope they believe Jesus gave them. However, are they aware that the resurrected are to be sexless (Matt 22:30) and will live, not in heaven but on a reconstructed Earth where life is easy with no mountains, spending their time praising God for ever? What a dismal prospect.
In truth this is a Pharisaic delusion derived from other ancient religions. Life here has no purpose other than survival.
To The Scotsman (8 Jun 2022) published 10 Jun 2022 in Edinburgh Evening News!
Tragically, the USA is a victim of its own poorly worded Constitution: a warning to all drafters of constitutions.
The Second Amendment includes the phrase: 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. The framers of the clause adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions, who may have wanted to defend themselves against the federal government.
The clause might have been intended to mean that the people could arrange to have Militias, like the modern National Guard, for their own protection and it might not have been intended to allow every citizen to have weapons of their own. But, unfortunately, that's how it has been interpreted.
During the Second World War in the UK there was a warning that 'careless talk costs lives'; in this case, careless writing is costing lives. Constitutions must not be ambiguous or controversial.
Tragically, the USA is a victim of its own poorly worded Constitution: a warning to all drafters of constitutions.
The Second Amendment includes the phrase: 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. The framers of the clause adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions, who may have wanted to defend themselves against the federal government.
The clause might have been intended to mean that the people could arrange to have Militias, like the modern National Guard, for their own protection and it might not have been intended to allow every citizen to have weapons of their own. But, unfortunately, that's how it has been interpreted.
During the Second World War in the UK there was a warning that 'careless talk costs lives'; in this case, careless writing is costing lives. Constitutions must not be ambiguous or controversial.
To The Times (5 Jun 2022) published?
There's nothing 'implanted' in me that 'is an inchoate craving for something missing, on object in which to repose a unifying esteem' (Matthew Parris in his column 'Our Queen unites us because we wish it so', 4 June). Because I am a republican, not even the Queen. I am quite happy with the absence of a god and would be with no monarch. My life is sufficient unto itself. What's the matter with Matthew that he thinks like this?
There's nothing 'implanted' in me that 'is an inchoate craving for something missing, on object in which to repose a unifying esteem' (Matthew Parris in his column 'Our Queen unites us because we wish it so', 4 June). Because I am a republican, not even the Queen. I am quite happy with the absence of a god and would be with no monarch. My life is sufficient unto itself. What's the matter with Matthew that he thinks like this?
To The Scotsman (3 Jun 2022) published 6 Jun 2022
Andrew HN Gray claims that modern Christianity is a product of the Enlightenment and is itself 'modern, liberal and progressive...[leaving]...humanism looking rather pointless' (Letter[s], 1 June).
His argument has a lot of holes. Firstly, the Enlightenment emphasised reason and individualism rather than tradition, undermining the tenets of the Church. It's roots lay in the humanism (sic) of the Renaissance and it led to rational and empirical methods of discovering truth by scientific methods.
In particular it allowed the Bible to be accessible to the laity in their own language. This led to criticism by deists who propounded a natural religion without revelation or miracles. Furthermore, astronomy destroyed the Biblical cosmology while geology destroyed the Biblical creation account and ridiculed the chronology of the Old Testament. So is Mr Gray's Christianity one where most of the Bible is of doubtful veracity?
Nietzsche regarded Christianity as 'decadent'. It is certainly in decline in progressive and enlightened countries. More and more people, in the UK anyway, reject religion, especially Christianity. Perhaps Christianity is now so 'liberal' that one can believe anything. Is that 'progressive'? It appears that it is Christianity, not humanism, that is 'pointless'.
Andrew HN Gray claims that modern Christianity is a product of the Enlightenment and is itself 'modern, liberal and progressive...[leaving]...humanism looking rather pointless' (Letter[s], 1 June).
His argument has a lot of holes. Firstly, the Enlightenment emphasised reason and individualism rather than tradition, undermining the tenets of the Church. It's roots lay in the humanism (sic) of the Renaissance and it led to rational and empirical methods of discovering truth by scientific methods.
In particular it allowed the Bible to be accessible to the laity in their own language. This led to criticism by deists who propounded a natural religion without revelation or miracles. Furthermore, astronomy destroyed the Biblical cosmology while geology destroyed the Biblical creation account and ridiculed the chronology of the Old Testament. So is Mr Gray's Christianity one where most of the Bible is of doubtful veracity?
Nietzsche regarded Christianity as 'decadent'. It is certainly in decline in progressive and enlightened countries. More and more people, in the UK anyway, reject religion, especially Christianity. Perhaps Christianity is now so 'liberal' that one can believe anything. Is that 'progressive'? It appears that it is Christianity, not humanism, that is 'pointless'.
To The Scotsman (1 Jun 2022) published 4 Jun 2022
Surely, as a Scot, Murdo Fraser knows that the Queen is not 'II' in Scotland; we had no previous monarch of that name ('It's time to think again, republicans', [Scotsman] 1 June). At the time there were protests at this regnal number being applied (who decided that?).
She is not even the second of England, as the UK is a different country, formed in 1800 from the union of Great Britain and Ireland. Consequently, Elizabeth should not have been given any regnal number, being the first of that name for the UK. The UK's first monarch was George III.
[Mr Fraser should note p]Presidents are not appointed for 70 years. US presidents are limited to 10 [ten] years as are the German presidents.
To The Scotsman (26 May 2022) not published
Otto Inglis claims that the greatest cause of climate change is 'variation in the sun's energy output' (Letter, 21 May). He also refers to the 'hysteria' over the issue and evidently believes that global warming is merely a natural fluctuation.
The Sun's output does vary as it goes through an 11-year sunspot cycle. However this variation is too small to have much effect on global warming, which is mainly driven by the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Mr Inglis calls for 'science grounded in observation, common sense, mathematics and, above all, integrity'. That's precisely what the International Committee on Climate Change has been doing. So it's disappointing that dinosaurs like Mr Inglis prefer to ignore it and put their faith in myths.
Surely, as a Scot, Murdo Fraser knows that the Queen is not 'II' in Scotland; we had no previous monarch of that name ('It's time to think again, republicans', [Scotsman] 1 June). At the time there were protests at this regnal number being applied (who decided that?).
She is not even the second of England, as the UK is a different country, formed in 1800 from the union of Great Britain and Ireland. Consequently, Elizabeth should not have been given any regnal number, being the first of that name for the UK. The UK's first monarch was George III.
[Mr Fraser should note p]Presidents are not appointed for 70 years. US presidents are limited to 10 [ten] years as are the German presidents.
To The Scotsman (26 May 2022) not published
Otto Inglis claims that the greatest cause of climate change is 'variation in the sun's energy output' (Letter, 21 May). He also refers to the 'hysteria' over the issue and evidently believes that global warming is merely a natural fluctuation.
The Sun's output does vary as it goes through an 11-year sunspot cycle. However this variation is too small to have much effect on global warming, which is mainly driven by the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Mr Inglis calls for 'science grounded in observation, common sense, mathematics and, above all, integrity'. That's precisely what the International Committee on Climate Change has been doing. So it's disappointing that dinosaurs like Mr Inglis prefer to ignore it and put their faith in myths.
To Edinburgh Evening News (20 May 2022) published 23 May 2022
I hope that Prof Adam Tomkins ('Second referendum would result in Yes vote', 19 May) is wrong [when he says a second referendum would result in a Yes vote]. Not everyone agrees with him. However, a close Yes result vote with about half the voters against independence would be more than unsatisfactory; it could cause extreme bitterness and strife.
The only way to hold a meaningful and acceptable result is to require a two-thirds majority for change. After all the SNP could not change their own constitution without such a majority. What's good enough for them is surely good enough for Scotland.
I hope that Prof Adam Tomkins ('Second referendum would result in Yes vote', 19 May) is wrong [when he says a second referendum would result in a Yes vote]. Not everyone agrees with him. However, a close Yes result vote with about half the voters against independence would be more than unsatisfactory; it could cause extreme bitterness and strife.
The only way to hold a meaningful and acceptable result is to require a two-thirds majority for change. After all the SNP could not change their own constitution without such a majority. What's good enough for them is surely good enough for Scotland.
To The Scotsman (20 May 2022) published 23 May 2022
Dr Andy Steiger thinks that he owes nothing to a 'meaningless universe' ('If you care about the planet, invite God into your thinking', 19 May). Instead, he thinks belief in God alone justifies care for the environment and gives meaning to life.
However, we don't need belief in an invisible deity to know that we need to care for and fix our environment. The reason being that, if we want humanity to survive (I take that as given), we owe it to future generations. We are here by lucky chance on this planet, probably the only one in this Galaxy with intelligent life. So we also have a duty to survive and make the most of the situation in which we find ourselves. It would be a shame to so ruin the planet that human life becomes impossible. Unfortunately it looks as if we will. What would Dr Steiger's god think about that?
Dr Andy Steiger thinks that he owes nothing to a 'meaningless universe' ('If you care about the planet, invite God into your thinking', 19 May). Instead, he thinks belief in God alone justifies care for the environment and gives meaning to life.
However, we don't need belief in an invisible deity to know that we need to care for and fix our environment. The reason being that, if we want humanity to survive (I take that as given), we owe it to future generations. We are here by lucky chance on this planet, probably the only one in this Galaxy with intelligent life. So we also have a duty to survive and make the most of the situation in which we find ourselves. It would be a shame to so ruin the planet that human life becomes impossible. Unfortunately it looks as if we will. What would Dr Steiger's god think about that?
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) published 22 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 night time'.
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) published 22 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 night time'.
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.