JOHN Black analyses the economics of renewable energy (Letters, December 13).

He does not take into account that there is another aspect which is relevant and which may explain the consistent popularity of wind and other forms of renewable energy here in Scotland - a deeply-held desire to keep Scotland as unpolluted as possible. This in itself brings economic benefits in the realms of agriculture, tourism, quality of life.

People in Scotland appreciate that cheap fossil fuel has done enormous damage to the planet - air pollution, acidification of water courses, ever-increasing numbers of private cars which make life in our cities intolerable. These problems are extremely costly to tackle. I note that the cost of cleaning up Sellafield has risen to £75bn (still rising and paid by the taxpayer). I also note that the liquidators for the Scottish Coal Company face huge costs for environmental clean-up ("Appeal judges rule mines must be cleaned up", The Herald, December 13). I do not see this in Mr Black's calculations. Torness and Longannet are not cheap.

The planet breathes a sigh of relief with every renewable project. There must be investment in renewable energy. It is difficult living in a time of transition. It is expensive but we must continue the search for non-polluting energy. We have a duty to future generations to stop damaging fossil-fuel emissions which threaten our health and well-being.

We live increasingly in an era of accountants and balance-sheets. But we must have ideals. The cheapest is not necessarily the best.

J Lodge,

3 Sandhead Road,

Strathaven.

IT is refreshing to see that the companies who profited from open-cast mining in Scotland are not to be allowed to completely abandon their obligation to restore the sites to their former condition. However, just as in the case of the banking collapse, the public are left having to pay the lion's share of the bill when those who have profited from the exercise pocket the cash and walk away.

One assumes institutions and individuals have made substantial monetary gains from Scottish coal mines which they have been allowed to keep. If they didn't, well they made a bet and this time they lost. Meanwhile in essence those who bought the coal are being asked to pay to clean up the mess the companies left behind.

The bonds these firms were supposed to have to pay for remedial site-works appear not to be fit for purpose. What action has been taken against those who were in charge of this process? Surely it can't be all that difficult to calculate with some degree of certainty how much it costs to fill in a hole in the ground; somebody must have done it before somewhere else and surely the process was reviewed regularly, if not why not? How much public money has already been given to these companies as grants, inducements and tax-relief?

Yet again if anything can be demonstrated by this sorry affair it is the failure of our system of governance in what should be its primary role, that of preventing powerful individuals and institutions from exploiting the general public.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3 131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.