Letter: As a regular holiday visitor driving through Shropshire to West Wales I have been saddened by the growing number of unnecessary windfarms along my favourite routes.
The excuse for constructing these monstrosities is that they “combat climate change”.
It is not explained that they are supposed to do this by reducing the carbon emissions from a fossil-fuel power station nor is it explained that since the wind does not blow at the required strength all the time, and sometimes does not blow at all, then each windfarm has to be partnered by a fossil-fuel station ready to supply electricity when the winds fail and to supply the necessary carbon emissions for the windfarm to reduce when the winds pick up again.
Furthermore, it is not mentioned that since the average “Load Factor” of an onshore windfarms is only 25 per cent then the windfarm can only ever reduce the carbon emissions of its partner fossil-fuel station by a measly 25 per cent.
It is worth noting that replacing the fossil fuel plant with a carbon-clean nuclear plant will reduce the emissions to zero and eliminate the need for four windfarms – as well as the partner fossil fuel station!
These facts seem to have bypassed the thought processes of politicians who appear to be more concerned with manipulating expenses than they are with supplying us with a carbon clean, reliable electricity supply.
William Oxenham
Edinburgh
14 Comments
I can hear the sound of Hugh Peach sharpening his keyboard!
Report abuse
William wrote: “These facts seem to have bypassed the thought processes of politicians who appear to be more concerned with manipulating expenses than they are with supplying us with a carbon clean, reliable electricity supply.”
No, Willliam, these facts haven’t bypassed their thoughts at all. They know full well what they’re doing:
1) Lumbering us with huge “green” taxes to sustain their spending on fripperies and expenses.
2) Feathering their nests through creation of a now discredited “global warming” industry, which, along with its myriad quangos that they will no doubt be “un”elected to, (i.e. appointed by their mates), will give them an opportunity to travel widely, (no doubt starting at Heathrow’s 3rd runway), eat sumptuously and live it up in 5 star style as they attend “summit meetings” to the detriment of the World’s poor people, (and the rest of us before long).
They’re a corrupt cartel, ready to accuse all people who want to see a rounded debate of being “climate change deniers” and it doesn’t matter which of our regular correspondents sharpens his keyboard, it won’t change the fact that UEA and their climate-change proselytizers doctored the facts and denied access to the debate to those who had research that opposed their point of view.
And we shall no doubt soon see, they are authoritarians, anti-free speech and too dangerous to be let loose and unfettered among a democratic society. We need to show them for the anti-democrats that they are.
Climate change proselytizers = global debate deniers.
Report abuse
Climate change is a distraction, the real issue is energy security (i.e running out of fossil fuels) and HMG knows this. Don’t place too much hopes on the nukes. Uranium oxide is a commodity that will rise (dramatically) in price as every other country realises its in the same situation an tries to build nuclear. Wind is proven technology. You have the choice of either your 3kW kettle or the view from your walk in the woods. ie. we have to give up something for our comfortable lifestyle.
Report abuse
Hmm sorry Ron, but it is a little late in the day to try to change horses, we are constantly bombarded with scare stories about devastating climate change, hence we must cut our C02 output, that is the ground on which the whole Global Warming argument is founded.
It would now seem with the recent disclosure of leaked emails from the worlds leading climate output agency, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, that to say the least the science looks as if it has been manipulated by a few insiders, that a new horse might be needed, but I do not think it will wash. You are effectively telling us that every body lied about the need to cut our C02 levels and now that lie is being exposed the real reason can be revealed.
Report abuse
Are windfarms the only way? No there is Nuclear or living in caves.
Or we could just carry on as we are? After all it is now accepted that Global Temperatures are dropping. Having seen the Franz Joseph glacier twice, I can confirm that it is advancing.
Also polar bears are thriving and increasing in numbers contrary to what the Carbon Trader and official endorser of Audi diesel cars, Al Gore, would have us believe.
Re Kens comment #4. It is quite true and has been well known for years that the Global Warmers have never disclosed all of their data. It is now accepted that the world has been cooling for the last 10 years and hence ‘Global Warming’ is being phase out for ‘Climate Change’. These Greenies are what we now call Chameleons as they change to suit the circumstances. They’ve never fooled me and never will.
The biggest laugh was when I was in Germany recently. Everyone was howling with laughter at Al Gore’s latest gaff. He wants pets banned as they contribute to global warming. He claimed that the average pet emits the equivalent green house gases of driving an SUV 100,000km!!!
Al Gore is America’s answer to the UK’s David Ike!
Well my colleagues decided that the average pet was a German Shepherd that lived for nine years. After measuring stool samples, it was decided that owning a German Shepherd is the equivalent of driving a Toyota Prius 2,000km!!
Just what will the next scare story be?
Unfortunately Al Gore’s weight was unknown and his stool samples were not available, but it is estimated that as he is a meat eater himself (whilst advocating vegetarianism for Global Warming reasons), his ‘personal’ greenhouse emission is the equivalent of 1000 domestic cats – I know which I’d rather have.
Report abuse
Lucy, please do not insult David Icke like that!
Report abuse
I understand about people complaining about living at the end of a runway.
I can see the point of complaining about living near a pheadofile detention centre
- but a windmill creating power and moaning about that whilst on holiday??
Get a life.
If it was nucelar power stations people would moan, if African slaves roade exercise bikes people would moan. Just what is wrong with a wind power farm on a hill top somewhere?
If someone said as an excuse that they combat climate change then Id be here for days saying how crazy this is. However, the point is that we need power in our society.
Report abuse
ALso.. what about the point of William traveling from Scotland by motor vehicle? Why not use a horse? Surely this is a more natural way to travel.
Seeing a man traveling upon horseback is more appealing to the eye that William probably listening to the radio (Whose broadcassts come from transmitters also normally upon hill tops) whilst in a motorcar whose path has been cut into the countryside to enable poor William to get to his holiday destination.
Report abuse
I think the simple sleek design of wind turbines settle in quite well with the landscape.
The one on the hill behind Largs in Scotland looks quite nice when seen on the Largs to Cumbrae ferry!
Report abuse
I think windmills are attractive but I was surprised how much noise they make when you get near them. And there wasn’t a heap of dead birds at the bottom as some people will have you believe.
However Nucleur is quiet.
Report abuse
Global Warming is a non-issue. Planets go through natural processes of warming and cooling. Ever heard of the Ice Age?
Another thing to take into account is that Mars is also warming up at almost the same rate as Earth is. Could it be a coincidence that two planets are warming up at almost the same rate? But we have to attribute the cause of our warming to be our cars and our homes? This is just silly.
The real issue we need to deal with is finding a sustainable source of power. Fossil fuels clearly aren’t sustainable.
Neither is nuclear energy. What do you propose we do with all the toxic waste that’s likely to do more damage than all the current landfill sites we have? Jettison it to outer space?
Report abuse
Adam: I went to the Sellafield Nuclear Recycling plant and if my whole life energy needs came from nuclear, the waste would be the size of a marble.
We could just chuck them down abandoned deep pit mines where they wouldn’t hurt anyone.
Report abuse
William, find another route to your destination if you don’t like them. i find them attractive and easy on the eye.
Report abuse
Lucy thanks for your post, and, like you I find Al Gore a bit ‘out to lunch’.
Good to know that you have visited the France (glacier) in Westland National Park.
Wonderfully beautiful place don’t you think?
During the ’60s I worked at Westland and Mt. Cook national parks as a Mountain Guide and on search and rescue. I likely know the glaciers of that region better than most. I also assisted geologists in measuring the depth, length etc., of the glaciers within those parks. So I know the area almost like the back of my hand.
Whilst I agree that France and Fox (glaciers) have likely recovered a bit of their former ice and have to a small degree extended, the overall picture in those parks is not that great. Tasman glacier – situated on the eastern side of the divide and the largest glacier in that area – has seen incredible loss of ice since my adventures over forty years ago. At least one of the mountain huts has slid into the glacier because of the receding ice, and the icy top of Mt. Cook fell off some years ago. Climbs of Mt. Tasman as well as many other peaks are no longer the same, and huge crevasses in icefields have developed.
Today we have -28c here in Canada – so we are not all that worried about Global Warming. However, if pollution is reduced whether because of this so-called threat to the environment then I’m all for it.
Report abuse