The collapse of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) project at Longannet highlights the uncertainty which exists, given the technical and financial challenges of capturing carbon dioxide from power stations ("Scottish fury mounts over Longannet 'kick in teeth'", The Herald, October 20).

It must be transported safely, then stored in a way that gives confidence that it will stay where it’s put for a period of time which must be measured in geological terms, not in business or electoral cycles. If it can be done, it will help to smooth the transition away from fossil fuels. It’s a pretty big if.

Both UK and Scottish Governments have ignored this “if”, as they seek cover for the expansion of the fossil fuel industries – both extractive and power generating. The SNP in particular has worked a very clever trick of promoting both a high-carbon and a low-carbon economy at the same time. As well as support for renewables, we’ve seen an expansion of open-cast coal extraction, proposed coal-fired and gas-fired power stations, fulsome ministerial support for deepwater oil drilling and a refusal to rule out shale gas extraction.

Whether we blame technical problems, financial risks, or Treasury shenanigans for the failure of the Longannet project, the fact is that CCS remains a speculative technology that will not be available for many years, if ever. Ministers in both governments must now abandon their support for new fossil fuel generating capacity.

They must also, if they are serious about wanting fossil carbon to stay out of the atmosphere, accept the need to leave it where it is. It is already captured, in the ground and under the seas. If it’s extracted it will be burned and it makes no difference whatever to the climate whether it shows up on Scotland’s emissions inventory or someone else’s.

Patrick Harvie, MSP (Green Party),

The Scottish Parliament,

Edinburgh.

I MAY not be an expert on carbon capture and storage, but I think I can spot a devious political stitch-up when I see one. The Coalition Government’s decision to withdraw £1billion of future investment to develop the new technology at Longannet Power Station in Fife has all the hallmarks of such chicanery, following the previous Government’s disgraceful failure to support the original Peterhead carbon capture project four years ago,

The UK Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, told Parliament on Wednesday that the decision was taken because “Longannet is too far away from the North Sea reservoirs, and the length of lines needed makes the project unviable”. Yet these former oil pipelines are already there and have been proved suitable to carry the CO2 emissions from the plant to the storage chambers. It is hard to believe that their length and cost of using them were not known at an early stage of the engineering consultancy and research work already carried out.

Yet Mr Huhne told MPs that these costs had increased the estimate for the carbon capture plant from £1billion to £1.2 billion, and the Treasury was adding another 15% “just in case”. As a result it was unable or unwilling to commit the extra funding to the Longannet CCS project, which therefore has to be abandoned.

This is hard to believe. I suspect someone in the Coalition Government suddenly realised putting Treasury cash into this project would help the SNP boast about Scotland leading the world in the new technology and meeting its target of 100% renewable energy by 2020. So a rather unconvincing reason was found for withdrawing the funding.

In the last 35 years the Treasury has collected hundreds of billions from oil tax revenues and sales of exploration licence fees, most of which should have come to Scotland. Instead, this has disappeared without trace into UK current public expenditure, with not a penny saved in a reserve fund for future capital investment and infrastructure as Norway has prudently done. Now it seems we can’t afford to invest in ground-breaking new technologies that could transform Scotland’s economic future. Yet we are still asked to believe that we would be better off under the control of a UK Government that can’t find another measly £200 million from its petty cash, while it treats billions of one-off revenue in such a cavalier fashion.

Iain A D Mann.

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

I AM not surprised that Alex Salmond expresses disappointment at the decision to abandon carbon capture at Longannet. This allows him to look sagacious whilst the smarter politicians take realistic decisions. The technology would be easier to achieve at Peterhead, where the power station is gas-fired and will not require separation of soot and other problematic solids from exhaust gases prior to entering high-pressure compressors that require almost sterile feedstock.

Any carbon capture technology will require at least 15% more fuel to power the equipment to deal with the CO2 and this is before capital and maintenance costs are added. Just what will this do for our economy when we are currently experiencing the highest inflation in Europe due in the main to high energy prices? Costs aside, it is not clever to burn additional fossil fuels that are a diminishing finite resource.

Mr Salmond supports a coal-fired power station on the Hunterston peninsula. An additional three million tonnes of coal a year will be shipped in for this venture and the coal dust will add to the volumes already being spread along the beautiful Ayrshire coast. His legacy will be one of our proud landscape covered in inefficient windmills and industrial desolation.

Perhaps we could build a nuclear power station to supply the energy for carbon capture? Or should we just build more nuclear power stations? We have the experience, the operating skills and expertise on both coasts.

Nuclear power is clean, economic and would not cause a 15% increase in acid rain and other pollutants on to the unsuspecting population, something the proponents of carbon capture do not advertise.

Peter Wright,

1E Yerton Brae,~ West Kilbride.

Your report of the withdrawal of the carbon capture and storage project at Longannet (“Scots £1 billion climate change plant is axed”, The Herald, October 19) makes the following comparisons of interest.The annual cost of Trident is approximately £1billion; the cost of the UK’s military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq this financial year £4.5billion; this year’s Ministry of defence budget £33.8billion. Compare these prohibitive costs against £1bn to further a flagship carbon capture and storage project, a positive future weapon in support of the world’s fight against a day of irreversible atmospheric pollution.

China, with its vast coal reserves, has been building coal-fired plants at an ever-increasing rate. A single state in India is proposing to build a succession of similar plants which would bring its carbon emissions alone up to that of Spain or Poland.

Any system which could in the future help to reduce the mammoth carbon emissions produced by this form of plant has to be welcomed with enthusiasm, and the suspension of this innovative project is an unbelievable decision.

The UK Government should forget about financial restraint and instead seriously consider the future of the younger generation of this world. Let’s face it, for their sakes, £1billion is peanuts.

Frederick Jenkins,

The Lodge, Bunton, Kippen.