| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Bottom of table on three counts
Credit: Hebden Bridge Times, www.hebdenbridgetimes.co.uk 31 December 2010 ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
I agree entirely with Kathryn Burt (Hebden Bridge Times, November 25) when she says the science of wind power has not been questioned.
The whole alternative energy scenario seems to have been construed in an ad hoc, panic stricken – “Oh we must meet the targets” – way. Logical, rational, visionary thought concerning reliability, environmental damage and cost effectiveness seems to have been lost along the way as on all those three counts wind farms would be bottom of the league.
They are notoriously unreliable, working only 25 per cent of the time, and because of this conventional carbon dioxide producing coal and oil power stations need to be retained. Wind farms are an environmental disaster, particularly in moorland areas.
Huge amounts of carbon are stored in the peat uplands which when dug up releases large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Considering it takes 16 years for a turbine to pay back the carbon dioxide emitted during its manufacture and erection, plus the five years or so of peat emissions, it does beg the question about the benefits to be gained from the 20-25 year lifespan of a wind farm.
We also have no idea of what the effect of numerous wind farms/turbines will have on a fragile eco-system – the water table, flooding in the valleys and wildlife.
To give one example of the cost effectiveness of wind farms: we are paying £100 million a year in subsidies to the latest offshore Swedish wind company in Kent for the next 20 years (our electric companies have to pay three times the normal price for wind power). Multiply this by the 100 or more wind farms planned or in use and you can see why the wind farm companies are rubbing their hands with glee at the gullibility of the authorities.
Yet Sir Bernard’s arguments have to be taken with a pinch of salt because of his “vested interests”. Don’t wind farm companies have vested interests then?
If some of that money from the Kent field had been invested in one nuclear power station, we would have had 13 times more electricity with greater reliability. Or, if a fraction of that money had been put into former water powered areas such as ours, it would certainly have been a lot more reliable with cheaper electricity and far less environmental damage.
Fuel cell boilers are now being installed in Australian homes. Soon, wind farm technology will be obsolete and we shall be left with a pile of lavatory brushes adorning our landscape. Progress?
P. Jordan,
Rose Grove,
Mytholmroyd.
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=44945 ]
