THE misinformed comparison of the costs of nuclear and wind power has rumbled into a second week (Letters, February 28). If wind power is so cheap, why does it need such vast subsidies?

Extensive research on the real financial performance of offshore wind has been carried out by Professor Gordon Hughes from the University of Edinburgh and his findings are based on simple calculations applied to real-world information in the form of hundreds of sets of audited wind farm accounts going back years. The work he has done is rigorous, objective and emphatically slays the myth of cheap wind power.

Even a cursory examination of the accounts lodged at Companies House for offshore wind farm operations like Beatrice, Dudgeon or Galloper will reveal that these ventures incur annual operating costs in the scores of millions for operations, maintenance and interest on their multi-billion-pound loan financing. Further, these costs are increasing year by year, not going down. Capital costs are also increasing as new wind farm developments are being built further from shore and in deeper water. Worryingly, the CfD contracts recently signed at or near £40 per MWH – remember this is price and not cost – are not viable at current cost levels which are running up to and over £100 per MWH. Check some annual accounts, the information is there.

Frances McKie (Letters, February 21) quoted £132 billion of UK nuclear decommissioning costs, which is a staggering figure. Incurred over the 70 years of the British nuclear power programme so far, this averages at £2bn or so per year. However, this bears favourable comparison with the £4bn-plus of taxpayer-funded offshore wind subsidy paid in 2021 and the further many billions of green costs applied to energy bills each year. Since wind turbines are likely to have to be replaced in 20 years or less, the capital cost and probable subsidy will repeat in predictable cycles. Compare this with the proven lifespan of a nuclear power plant at 60 years and increasing. The capital cost of the recent Beatrice offshore wind farm was £4.3m per MW of installed power. Even if Hinckley Point C costs £22bn to complete, the capital cost per MWH produced will be far less than offshore wind because of wind speed variability and the three to four times as long operational life of a nuclear asset. Simply put, we get more electricity from nuclear per pound of capital spend. Lastly, remember that the wind does not blow all the time. To compensate for this you need battery storage. The topic of storage seldom comes up in cost discussions. There is a very good reason for that. The cost of grid-scale battery storage is absolutely enormous and, similar to wind turbines, it has a relatively short operational life. However, this is another story for another day.

We need nuclear power for the foreseeable future. Given a proper hearing and compared with alternatives in the right way, it will prove itself on its own merits.

Andy Cartwright, Glasgow.

TIME TO BACK OUR RURAL COLLEGES

RE Prince Charles’s new project, a traditional farming skills school at Dumfries House in Ayrshire ("Prince Charles gets green light for sustainable farming college", The Herald, February 26): is he not aware that Scotland already has six countrywide centres of excellence teaching agricultural studies from National Certificate FE level to degree and postgraduate study? One of them is in fact near Dumfries House, the long-established college at Auchincruive, Ayr.

Together they form Scotland’s Rural College, known as SRUC, which as well as offering six teaching and research facilities also has eight farms, 25 consulting offices and eight vet practices.

Instead of money being raised to fund a completely new farm skills school resources would be better spent liaising with the present network of agricultural colleges to work in partnership with them to promote traditional skills within existing courses or to establish new courses.

Elitist educated members of the Establishment and Government are largely ignorant of the vital role that FE colleges in general play and could play more in many school leavers’ and young people's education and training.

They are at present grossly under-funded and ignored in favour of the universities and deserve more recognition and financial support for their role in offering well-supported, achievable stepping stones to qualifications in further and higher education for learners of all ages.

Margaret McGregor, Aberdeen.

KEY BENEFIT FOR EDINBURGH

MIKE Lewis (Letters, March 1) hits the nail on the head when he lists the benefits which the licensing of short-term rental properties should bring to places currently being hollowed out by extreme outbreaks of Airbnb flats.

But he misses out one of the benefits which will result when real live residents return to areas such as Edinburgh’s Old Town. That is the ending of the disfigurement of doorways and railings with key safes, something which is spreading fast across all of Edinburgh’s World Heritage site and spilling into neighbouring districts.

Few will mourn their disappearance. But, before they all go, perhaps Historic Environment Scotland should step in and list just a few of the worst examples. They could remain as a terrible warning of what could happen if we again let the short-term letting industry loose on our capital city.

Alistair Easton, Edinburgh.

LET'S KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET

I NOTE the suggestion from David Miller (Letters, February 26) to reduce the use of acronyms. Would there be no more Fifa, Uefa, Efta or Unesco? Life would indeed be dull if we lost our useful acronyms. Think of how much breath and ink we save by using them.

Would it make things any more correct by popping in to the Co-operative Wholesale Society than the Co-op (which started life as the Rochdale Pioneers) for three mushrooms and a carrot?

Thelma Edwards, Kelso.

* RUSSELL Smith's observations on NHS acronyms (Letters, March 1) reminded me of a pre-lockdown trip to my GP where I was diagnosed with TMB: Too Many Birthdays.

Steve Brennan, Coatbridge.

R RUSSELL Smith's acronym GOK (God Only Knows) reminds me that my accountancy firm had its method of preparing the annual accounts of clients whose book-keeping abilities fell more than a bit short of satisfactory. We used the G-squared method(By Guess and by God).

David Miller, Milngavie.