Sir, – I refer to the letter from Alexander Sutherland “Wind power could still run out of puff” (Press and Journal, September 12) in which he poses the standard question: “Where does the energy come from when the wind doesn’t blow?” but fails to make any reference to the advances currently being made in storing renewable energy.
He then refers to reactors which were tested (but not manufactured) at HMS Vulcan at Dounreay and claims that as a result of this Rolls-Royce have produced an SMR (Small Modular Reactor).
This is factually incorrect as Rolls-Royce received a grant from the UK Government of £210 million in November 2021 which will only pay for further development of an SMR design and to take the project through regulatory processes.
SMRs, as claimed, are neither carbon-free in construction/operation and even if mass-produced will not be any cheaper than large nuclear plants and will produce more radioactive waste for which there is no safe storage solution.
There is no prospect of SMRs playing any role in climate change mitigation and the prospects of the light water design (NuScale) are dismal, and other designs even more so.
A quicker, cleaner and cost-effective solution to future energy needs is a combination of geothermal, hydro, onshore and offshore wind, solar, wave and tidal power, and these are the technologies in which the UK and Scottish governments and the private sector should invest and accept that the future is not nuclear.
Tor Justad, Highlands Against Nuclear Transport, Ord Terrace, Strathpeffer.
An ill-wind blows if we pursue SMRs
Sir, – Your correspondent Alexander Sutherland imagines a Utopian future where our electricity is provided by Small Modular Reactors (SMR). A dose of reality would be helpful here.
At the moment there is only one SMR operating anywhere in the world, in Russia. The only other country even close to finishing an SMR is China.
Here in the UK, Rolls-Royce has not yet started building an SMR factory, let alone a working device. The company hopes to have the first SMR operating by the end of the decade. We should not hold our breath.
In case it has escaped the attention of Mr Sutherland, nuclear power is now by far the most expensive type of energy: at least four times the cost of renewables and three times the cost of gas (ref. Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, Version 13.0).
The cost of electricity from a small reactor would be at least as high as from a large reactor. At a time when we are all facing an energy price crisis, why ramp up the price higher?
Where would Mr Sutherland build an SMR? Close to, say, Aberdeen Beach? Would he let his children or grandchildren bathe near the radioactive wastewater outflow? Would he be happy to look out over such a vast complex?
And finally, there is the issue of how to dispose of the thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste we are still accumulating. Would he suggest burning it in the waste incinerator at Torry?
For the health of Aberdeen’s residents, let’s hope the wind never blows from the south.
Jeff Rogers, The Island, Waters of Feugh.
Update needed on president’s logic
Sir, – EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen recently said in a speech: “Democracy must update itself”.
The unelected head of an organisation chosen behind closed doors, telling the EU Parliament?
Quid multa?
Joe Moir, Duthie Court, Aberdeen.
Failing to face facts on climate change
Sir, – Although I am no Albert Einstein, I would remind Lesley Ellis (Press and Journal, September 13) of his declaration when faced by the contrary convictions of a hundred scientists that, were he in the wrong, the disagreement of only one scientist would be enough!
Science progresses by arguing about opposing hypotheses. The climate alarmists’ hypotheses have already received vast monetary support and publicity for many years.
They still do.
Lesley Ellis disapproves of the P&J publishing my opinion, although a mere medic, retired, that today’s climate events are normal, and within the ranges of the agreed historic record.
Why does she seek yet more press space for her contentions on climate change if these are correct and in the right?
Maybe, in seeking to suppress fair comment against presently received opinions, it is Mr Ellis who is in the wrong.
Charles Wardrop, Viewlands Road West, Perth.
A fresh viewpoint on funeral cortege
Sir, – I refer to Hugh and Irene Spencer’s letter, (Press and Journal, September 13). In more or less the words of Shakespeare, “methinks thou dost protest too much”.
The Queen’s cortege was headed by two police motorcyclists so that gave a clue to be ready. The fact that a lady missed the hearse completely suggests a lack of attention. The event video shows people crossing the Potarch bridge to the main road after the hearse had passed.
While acknowledging the road was lined with people at the Potarch bridge, I suspect the plan was for the cortege to slow down in 30mph areas where crowds would gather.
In fairness, it would have been difficult for planners to anticipate every location where people would gather in country areas. From the video, the cortege at Potarch did appear to have slowed a little.
In context, first seeing the cortege at 88ft away from you, and travelling at 30mph there would be two seconds before it passed. At 60mph it would be a second. Even at 15mph the cortege would pass in four seconds. Whatever the speed, you do not have a lot of time if you are not ready.
Perhaps they should have gone to one of the potentially slower areas with plenty of viewing space and not to the open country.
WHC Richmond, Kirkton of Durris, Banchory.
Cortege would only be glimpse
Sir, – In response to those who thought the Queen’s cortege passed too quickly – it was headed by two police motorcyclists so that gave a clue to be ready.
The fact that some missed the hearse completely suggests a lack of attention. Video shows people crossing the Potarch bridge to the main road after the hearse had passed.
The road was lined with people at the Potarch bridge. I suspect the plan was for the cortege to slow in 30mph areas where crowds would gather.
In fairness, it would have been difficult for planners to anticipate every location where people would gather in country areas. From the video, the cortege at Potarch did appear to have slowed a little.
In context, first seeing the cortege 88ft away from you, travelling at 30mph, there would be two seconds before it passed. At 60mph it would be a second. Even at 15mph, the cortege would pass in four seconds. Whatever, you do not have a lot of time.
Perhaps they should have gone to a potentially slower area with plenty of viewing space.
WHC Richmond, Kirkton of Durris, Banchory.
Conversation