Electricity shock

David Morris (Letters, 6 July) failed to point out to your readers that using wind turbine electricity (16p per unit ) for the electrolysis of water to

produce hydrogen to replace domestic gas (4p per unit ) is a highly expensive method of generating energy.

Firstly, his proposals would triple energy bills, wreck the aim of Andrew Wilson to grow the Scottish economy and be an enormous drain on the budgets of the 35 per cent of Scots living in fuel poverty. David Morris should remember that such poverty was pledged by Holyrood to be eliminated by 2016.

The second item David Morris failed to address is the £150 billion capital cost of installing sufficient wind turbines to generate sufficient renewable electricity to meet peak demand.

This will be necessary to allow the Environment Secretary to phase out the usage of 100 TW hours of gas over the next decade.

Perhaps Derek Mackay, MSP, can outline how Scots in fuel poverty can underwrite the costs detailed above when they will remove over 35 per cent of the take-home pay of those earning the average wage?

IAN MOIR Queen Street, Castle Douglas

May I take issue with a statement in Dr Charles Wardrop’s letter to you (7 July). He says: “Nuclear power for electricity generation still needs technical improvements for safety...”

This is not true, as is clearly evident from the safety record of all current plants.

In fact, nuclear is one of the safest generating systems compared to coal, oil and gas and is very similar in safety terms to wind and hydro generation.

At a time when we need to reduce emissions it is essential that nuclear generation is given full support by the public as the way to achieve a reduction in emissions.

We shall not reduce emissions without nuclear energy.

C. SCOTT Mortonhall Road, Edinburgh