Letters: Wrong on waves

A wave which reaches the roof of a three-metre house would have only 3 per cent of that velocity at the 100-metre depth of an offshore wave generator.

As drag forces go with the square of velocity the forces would be down by more than a thousand for the same structure and well below the wave forces for which the wave plant should have been designed.

John Cameron's comment about deaths from hypothermia due to insanely expensive renewable sources shows that he is confusing the high reward paid to encourage early pioneers to make risky investments with the actual cost of mature plant in the future.

If the historic clean-up costs of nuclear power are included, the real cost of wind energy from a well-chosen site is already lower.

When there is no wind, we can keep warm by burning the gas we did not burn when the wind was blowing.

Stephen Salter

Blackford Road

Edinburgh

In the wake of the recent explosions at the Japanese nuclear power stations, we are assured that they bear no relation to the safety of nuclear stations in the UK or any other European countries because our countries are geologically stable.

Do we not think that the Japanese took risks of tectonic plate movements into account when siting and building their power stations? And, yet, nature has the final say.

Western countries may not be on an Atlantic "ring of fire", but there is always the possibility of some nutcase hijacking an aeroplane and flying it into a nuclear power station, I suppose. Or don't they do such things in the West?

Barry Lees

Denholm Street

Greenock

I don't understand the sudden lack of faith in the nuclear fuel industry.

It only goes wrong once in a black moon.

Jim McDonald

Wallace Road

Dunblane, Perthshire

Friends of the Earth Scotland can absolutely agree with Malcolm Grimston (your report, 16 March) that there are many problems with fossil fuels, including pollution and security of supply, and we also think climate change is most definitely a concern.

However, I'm afraid I must take issue with many of the other points raised in Mr Grimston's analysis. Firstly, a recent poll on behalf of EDF Energy indicated that less than 50 per cent of Scots support new nuclear, which leads me to question the accuracy of his opening remark that the debate is "solidly behind" the idea of new nuclear power stations.

Secondly, the renewable alternatives - wind, wave and tidal - can more than meet our energy needs.A recent report commissioned by Friends of the Earth Scotland from Garrad Hassan shows that with investment in renewables, grid infrastructure, electricity storage and energy efficiency Scotland could supply up to 185 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2050.

Renewables are better. They are safer, more economic and their fuel doesn't cause human rights abuses now or disposal worries in the future.

I would argue that one of the reasons they aren't further along in their development is that we have been wasting billions on unsafe and uneconomic nuclear power, and it's time that changed.

Juliet Swann

Friends of the Earth Scotland

Rose Street

Edinburgh