Chris Parton is right to point out the potential nightmare of energy inadequacy (Letters, July 22).

However, he ignores the intermittence of windpower which is at present the main component of renewable energy strategy. The real nightmare is of a land covered by wind turbines which are producing nothing when we need it most.

We require to have an equivalent reliable capacity from other sources to ensure security of supply during these periods.

He lightly dismisses the effect of windfarms on the landscape which is itself a vital resource for the wellbeing of our people. The output from windfarms is pitifully small when set against the damage done to our wild places; not just the visual damage caused by changing the character of our countryside from rural to industrial but the damage caused by creating the infrastructure of roads, quarries, sub-stations and overhead lines among peatlands and forestry.

We must remove the ludicrous subsidies from onshore wind and accelerate our investment in more dependable renewable sources.

Andrew Mitchell,

4 Glenpark Avenue,

Prestwick.

It seems ironic that two completely opposite standpoints are published on the same day regarding renewable and non-renewable forms of generation.

Niall Stuart extols the virtues of wind turbines claiming that they already provide 15% of Scotland’s annual electricity needs (Letters, July 21). It is not clear whether this is 15% of consumption or of installed capacity. They are entirely different situations, bearing in mind the load factor (the percentage of time that the turbines are actually generating electricity at full power).

Meanwhile, details are given of a proposal to build a coal-fired power station at Hunterston, claiming the output would be sufficient to meet the needs of up to three million homes (“Anger at new proposals for power plant”, The Herald, July 21).

This is an extraordinary claim since an output capacity of 1852 megawatts equates to 617 watts per household assuming concurrent demand.

Both sides cannot be right.

Brian Samuel,

56 Beech Avenue,

Newton Mearns,

Glasgow.

You report the failure of Scottish and Southern Energy to sell a 50% interest in the Braes of Doune windfarm to Climate Change Capital due to market conditions (“Windfarm sale failure blamed on wider financial conditions”, The Herald, July 21).

It may simply be a poor investment. This windfarm, which now dominates our view of Ben Vorlich and its neighbouring mountains across the battlefield of Sheriffmuir, is more often than not without movement. It would be interesting to know whether it has lived up to expectation in terms of energy production or is it just another eyesore on the landscape?

Virginia Wills,

Glentye,

Sheriffmuir.

The Royal Academy of Engineering’s report, Costs of Generating Electricity, makes it clear that wind energy is expensive, the point made by Struan Stevenson (Letters, July 19).

The academy calculates the cost of nuclear generation at 2.2p a unit, onshore wind at 5.2p and offshore wind at 7.2p. This does not include the substantial cost of transmission.

Gamesa, Doosan and Mitsubishi are attracted to this country by the billions available in grants and inflated electricity bills.

The cost of renewable energy to the consumer is notably absent from the majority of documents on wind energy, which are also equally evasive on the need for back-up power. We should be extremely grateful to Mr Stevenson for voicing concerns about windfarms. We undoubtedly need other sources of electricity but the case for renewables is not enhanced by these omissions.

Bob Hamilton,

55 Halbeath Road,

Dunfermline.