Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

October 20: National Grid is the real problem, not windfarms

October 20: National Grid is the real problem, not windfarms

Today’s letters to The Courier.

Sir, Much play is made by the opponents of wind energy of so-called ”constraint payments” made to windfarm operators by the National Grid.

These payments are made when the amount of energy produced by windfarms and, indeed, other energy sources including conventional coal, gas and nuclear power stations is so great that it cannot be absorbed into the National Grid.

While this may well sound perplexing, it is a necessary part of balancing an extremely complex system of energy supply and demand.

Windfarm operators are often portrayed as the main recipients of such payments. But figures revealed by UK Energy Minister Charles Hendry this week showed that in 2010-11, constraint payments to onshore windfarm operators in Scotland accounted for just 0.1% of the total £170m paid by National Grid.

The real problem lies not in windfarms, but in the ability of the grid to handle electricity produced, which is more to do with the state of our infrastructure.

In the future, we will increasingly need a mixture of energy sources including onshore wind to meet our electricity needs in a sustainable way that does not damage the environment or make us dependent on costly fuel imports.

But we will need upgrades to the National Grid to ensure we waste as little of the electricity we produce as possible.

Graham Brown.Chairman,Burcote Wind Ltd,Queensferry Road,Dunfermline.

Nuclear power is so much cheaper

Sir, David Cameron’s publicly ”calling in the energy companies to tell them off over prices” is a disgraceful bit of PR fluff, naturally supported by most other politicians.

The fact is that the reason electricity prices are going up is purely because of the activities of politicians like him.

They have been told, for years, that taking money from bills to subsidise windmills is bound to put up prices indeed it is so obvious they should not have needed telling.

Some people are getting paid up to 46.4p a unit for electricity when, according to Royal Academy of Engineering figures, even under current rules, nuclear costs 2.2p.

If nuclear were not under the burden of politically imposed rules which have no possible safety justification, it would cost about half as much.

If mass production were allowed it would probably be halved again. Thus at least 93% of the average electricity bill (£1200 out of £1300) is imposed by politicians.

The facts are clear and cannot honestly be seriously disputed. That is why no remotely honest politician can seek to blame the people producing power, rather than the politicians preventing it being produced, for the price.

Neil Craig.200 Woodlands Road,Glasgow.

Trying to establish defence policy

Sir, I have followed the ongoing debacle over independence for Scotland with interest.

The lack of apparent concern for the defence of the nation by the SNP troubles me the most.

I contacted The Courier earlier this year and gave MSP Rod Campbell the opportunity to explain the SNP’s position on membership of NATO. He declined to reply.

I then thought I would try my MSP, John Swinney. He also declined to reply.

However, I was sent a reply by the SNP’s Scott Miller, policy officer (defence and resilience strategy) who gave me an answer worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby.

There seems to me to be no reason why the SNP will not publish a comprehensive defence policy. I await their reply with anticipation.

Willie Robertson.Forest Park Cottage,Lynton,Stanley.

Not convinced by Fox story

Sir, Earlier this year The Courier published my cynical view of David Cameron’s simplistic rationale for Western intervention in Libya (April 11).

I thought then that our intervention in Libya was ill-advised and not in aid of those taking part in the Arab Spring, but rather in the interests of western oil and arms companies and Israeli foreign policy.

Ongoing revelations regarding the financial backers of Adam Werritty, the adviser to our recently departed Defence Secretary and the man who pushed for Libyan intervention, seem to confirm my concerns.

Now David Cameron tells us that Dr Fox’s decisions re Libya were sound, and his bad judgment only applied to his dealings with his chum.

It is difficult to swallow this six months after our intervention to prevent a massacre of civilians by Gaddafi when the pictures on TV are of rebels using weapons, aided by NATO aircraft, to reduce civilian areas to rubble.

Tom Minogue.94 Victoria Terrace, Dunfermline.

Want to train more able sailors

Sir, The Royal Navy is looking for any reader who has served in the electrical, radio, radar, weapons, warfare or control branch and is willing to help in a small way training tomorrow’s sailors.

Have a look at what we do at www.rneba.org.uk.

Mike Crowe.RN Electrical Branch Association,7 Heath Road,Sandown,Isle of Wight.

Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL.