Sir, It seems that the mention of hydro schemes is a lone whisper in a shouting crowd screaming tidal, wind and nuclear power for the production of electricity.
Hydro schemes would be inappropriate for England, but not for Scotland; a country replete with incessant rain and glens to fill.
This is an area where Westminster is somewhat dysfunctional for Scotland. Subsidising windfarms, and contemplating nuclear power stations is not necessary, if there is long-term investment in building dams expensive, most certainly, and not one that would make economic sense to any private company.
However, a nationalised hydro-power scheme is possible and one that should be seriously considered by a party promoting an independent Scotland.
Forget carbon emission targets for now, and with a clear conscience, for if dams were built, carbon emissions emanating from electricity production would fall to zero for evermore.
Private power distribution companies could still perform that function and their profits could rise when they can buy cheap power from a national power producer that does not rely on foreign imports, and does not submit to the whims of international market forces with the attendant erratic variation in costs.
Leslie Milligan. 18B Myrtlehall Gardens, Dundee.
A permanent change of heart . . . ?
Sir, The “powers that be” at Holyrood are obviously aware that the blight of windfarms now creeping across Scotland is not something that should be advertised to the world via the televising of The Ryder Cup (Jim Crumley’s excellent article, Tuesday).
No indeed! That might give the impression Scotland did not care sufficiently for its wonderful natural heritage; its birdlife ; its sanity, even. Therefore, one windfarm, whose industrial turbines would have wrecked the view for those visiting golfers and their worldwide audience, bites the dust.
But this raises an interesting question. The Scottish Government has long claimed that windfarms are not a turn-off to tourists. So why the sudden change of mind?
Could it be that the Ryder Cup people have given them a few home truths? They did not listen to Mr Trump. They do not listen to those of us who fight against the blight and destruction caused by windfarms.
They seem not to notice the paltry amount of power they produce, nor the cost on everyone’s electricity bill. They do not listen to those who have been made ill by living close to such machines.
But the Ryder Cup people? Well, of course, that is different. But will the Scottish Government’s change of mind be permanent? I wouldn’t put any money on it.
Councillor Ann Cowan. Ward 6 Strathearn, Fowlis Wester, Crieff.
RSPB aware of turbine threat
Sir, I am writing in response to the letter from G Worth (October 15) about the RSPB and windfarms. I would like to assure Mr Worth that RSPB Scotland is fully aware of the threat that badly sited windfarms pose to birds.
As a result of our assessments, we have objected to well over 100 windfarm proposals and pressured developers and government to change the layout of many hundreds more. RSPB scientists have also been assisting Norwegian colleagues at Smola windfarm for a number of years, helping them to understand why this windfarm is having such devastating consequences for white tailed eagles.
We know that climate change is already causing harm to wildlife across the world. We therefore need more renewables, including windfarms but they must be in the right places.
Ensuring that this happens takes a great deal of time and effort from our committed staff, but it is largely because of our involvement that we do not have windfarms in Scotland killing large numbers of birds.
Aedan Smith. RSPB Scotland Head of Planning and Development.
Young deserve better outlook
Sir, I refer to the report on religion in schools in Monday’s Courier. Let’s remember that education was introduced into this country by the church. Great scientific advances were made by scientists who believed the biblical account of creation.
I wonder why Patrick Harvie feels that children should be prevented from learning about the creation? Is the theory of evolution so threadbare that it needs special protection from competition?
Certainly recent discoveries about the complex biochemistry of the cell, DNA etc make Darwin’s theory of evolution look untenable.
Surely the “principles of respect and equality” would include respect for those who believe in a creator and a purpose to life.
If education includes moral guidance then teaching creation trumps evolution which is an “unscientific notion, an absurd ideology”.
As atheist Richard Dawkins puts it, according to evolution: “life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
I believe our young people deserve better and should be taught to think for themselves.
Paul Read. Clevitch, Newburgh.