Counterblast

Thanks to Lyndsey Ward and others who responded to my comments and did so in a reasoned and temperate manner (Letters, 5 December).

It’s true that a Scotsman article reported five million trees had been cut down as part of the process of windfarm development. But Ms Ward fails to mention that the same article states that about a third of those lands (800 hectares) were directly reforested and that, in the same period, more than 31,000 hectares, or approximately 62 million, trees were planted elsewhere in Scotland.

Nor is it mentioned that planning rules have been developed to require developers to replace trees removed in the process.

Also, it is worth noting that trees rarely figure as an issue in the more recent develop-

ment of offshore windfarms. So if we want honesty in the debate we should ensure that all of the facts are represented and not simply cherry picked to suit one’s argument.

Considerable comment has also been made on constraint payments. Let’s not, however, conflate the issue of the technical costs of generating electricity from renewables and the costs of an administrative or political decision about how much to pay for its production.

I personally think the costs of constraint payments are currently too high and should be continually reassessed as the industry develops, but that is no reason to say all renewables have unsupportably high costs. Let’s not forget, nuclear-generated electricity is not cheap, with Hinkley C optimistically costing £22 billion and with guaranteed contracted electricity prices in excess of current prices, and not scheduled to come online until 2027.

While I am willing to acknowledge shortcomings in renewable generation and reject the suggestions that I, and others who support renewables, naively accept pro-renewable propaganda. I await a letter discussing benefits and shortcomings in nuclear generation.

DAVID MORRIS Newmills Road, Dalkeith