Duncan Sedgwick is effusive in his praise of the major energy-supply companies (Platform, 4 July). One could almost believe that these companies were altruistic in their motives and actions.
Mr Sedgwick makes a detailed justification for the increased prices charged to consumers but conveniently omits to mention that over the same time period, these major energy suppliers have been making massive profits. He maintains that UK consumers b
enefit from "effective competition", but it could be argued that the major companies act like a cartel when raising prices. Also, it is not always so easy for the most vulnerable people in society to chop and change energy suppliers. A recent Uswitch report (Sunday Times, 25 May) suggests that many customers are deterred from switching suppliers because they are being asked for large one-off payments before they can move. In addition, the report indicates that it is often the fault of the utility companies themselves that customers are allowed to accumulate large debts.
Rather than accept Mr Sedgwick's anodyne interpretation, I would ask whether the major energy suppliers are, in fact, exploiting the British public at a time of serious economic difficulty.
JOHN WRENCH
Bonaly Terrace
EdinburghDespite attracting most of our attention, electricity is only a small fraction of final energy use and Bruce Skivington (Letters, 8 July) is absolutely right about the need for liquid transport fuels. If arguments about the flow characteristics of the Pentland Firth are correct then multiple banks of close-packed turbines could often supply far more electricity than Scotland could use on the coldest, darkest day of the year. The best thing to do with the surplus would be to electrolyse water and use the hydrogen and oxygen in a version of the Fischer-Tropsch process.
This was developed in Germany in the 1920s and used heavily in 1944 after Germany lost control of Romanian oil fields. The South Africans developed it as the SASOL process as a defence against oil sanctions during the apartheid era. In both countries, the energy and carbon components were provided by coal and so would not be popular today.
However, with hydrogen and oxygen from renewable sources, we could provide the carbon from municipal waste. This would be carbon neutral or, if the waste would otherwise be left to produce methane in landfill, strongly negative with respect to greenhouse gas emissions as well as an increasingly negative cost. The only output is a black vitreous waste which can be used as aggregate in concrete. A pilot plant is already operating in Scotland at Westfield, in Fife, and the process should become increasingly attractive as oil and landfill costs rise.
STEPHEN SALTER
Blackford Road
EdinburghGreenpeace and similar organisations have not only slowed progress but have put it back at least 50 years. If we had continued our development of nuclear power in the 1960s, by today all our fossil fuel power stations would have been decommissioned and we wouldn't be littered with useless wind turbines. If we had built an adequate road network, journeys would not take twice as long and therefore would not pollute twice as much as they need do. If we had pressed ahead with research into GM crops, millions would not wake-up each day so hungry – there would also be many more with full stomachs if we hadn't tried to fill our cars with bio-fuel.
Arguably the greatest benefit is that people in the UK would not spend their life with an unjustified feeling of guilt.
BRIAN CHRISTLEY
Bryn Gwyn
Abergele, ConwyThe full article contains 602 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
