With respect to generation of electricity, John Tomblin (Have Your Say, 30 Nov) lists a number of possible contributors to non-renewables baseload.

Apart from nuclear, the rest of his list either contributes an insignificant amount (eg pumped storage hydro 'so tiny as to be lumped with oil and other fuels' in the reference that I cite in the next paragraph) or are wishful thinking (eg batteries, wave power). My contention was that without significant baseload (mainly gas and nuclear currently) intermittent wind and solar cannot power a stable grid; his argument offers no counter to that.

Additionally, he claims solar and wind currently contribute around 40% to the electricity mix. He is mistaken: in 2020 their contribution was 28.4% (see page 28 of tinyurl.com/4tm9dev8, a GOV.UK publication that should be reliable). I suspect he is lumping in 'other renewables' to get his 40%. Other renewables includes things like pelleted wood (eg Drax power-station in Yorkshire), but this technology destroys established forests and, having been pelleted and transported halfway round the world, has a carbon cost greater than gas.

Finally, he claims that oil and gas are heavily subsidised in the UK. He may be right, but I know of no such subsidies and would be grateful if he would tell us what they are.

Tony Fisher

Weymouth