Read RSS Feed


Wind farms aren’t the right answer


SIR – Felicity Norman’s letter on October 22 (Our governments are using excuses) may seem impressive politics but it is scientific nonsense.

Wind farms are not the answer to green energy.

They are at best some 25 per cent efficient and, because they produce no electricity when the wind drops, they must be backed up by equal capacity in the form of new conventional power stations, which could be generating all the power in the first place.

Attempts in Germany and Denmark to phase wind energy into the grid have let to major technical problems resulting in reduced investment in their wind farm programmes. So the sceptical European governments are right.

Pie-in-the-sky green policies emanating from the EU have already led to enormous increases in all our utility bills to pay for handouts to greedy wind turbine manufacturers whose installations will be ineffectual in preventing power outages during the next few years.

PROFESSOR DEREK SMITH,

UKIP energy and environment spokesman, Malvern.


Your Say Your Worcester

Logik, Worcester says...
9:58am Fri 31 Oct 08

They produce no electricity when the wind is too strong either as they have to be turned off to stop them burning out.

Forthright, Worcester says...
3:20pm Fri 31 Oct 08

We have to tailor our society to sensible levels of demand rather than keep having to produce more energy for all the inessential uses it`s squandered on today....things like lighting city centres way beyond the levels necessary....or millions of wasteful car and aeroplane journeys that are pleasurable but hardly vital....and we have too many people in the country too...but it`s like talking to the wall !

jean shaw, worcester says...
4:12pm Fri 31 Oct 08

Well said .Wind farms are a blot on the landscape as well as being highly inefficient.

varien, Worcester says...
3:46pm Sat 1 Nov 08

When the miners were on strike in the mid 1980's a statement was made that there was enough coal in this country to generate all the electricity we needed for the next 1000 years. If that's the case then get on and use it. I'm sure technology has advanced sufficiently enough to enable coal fired electricity stations to be cleaned up. But what happens? - we have to pay homage to all the lentil eating bearded wonder brigade and start pratting around with windmills.

Common Sense, Pershore says...
7:27am Sun 2 Nov 08

I would say Prof.Smith is quite correct - Wind Farms are NOT the answer! Very costly eye-sores on the countryside and terribly inefficient as well!

"Our survey said: Triple-X...bur, buuurrr!"

As Varien says above, the technology has now moved on to "clean up" coal-fired stations - this should be brought forward with all possible speed, together with nuclear stations as well - where the same comments apply over cleaning up. If the French can do it, why can't we? (..and better!)

Trouble is, some silly person sold our Nuclear Power Station building company to a foreign business! Thanks a bundle, matey - we owe you one!

My advice? Get your candles, while you can!

(Now THERE'S a business opportunity, if ever there was one! Think ahead, guys!)

Logik, Worcester says...
10:51pm Sun 2 Nov 08

"But what happens? - we have to pay homage to all the lentil eating bearded wonder brigade and start pratting around with windmills."

Varien, you're going to upset them with comments like that. They have to save us from ourselves and the effects of climate change (used to be 'global warming', but it ain't warming is it?)

It has been reported that nearly 180 places in the US, from Alaska to Alabama, have just recorded their coldest October temperatures or heaviest October snowfalls on record, based on figures from the National Climate Data Center.

Also in the last week I read that Tibet has suffered its worst snowstorm ever. The worst-hit county had 36 consecutive hours of snowfall from Sunday, with an average snow coverage of 1.5 meters.

Better get that coal out and start stoking up the power stations before we all freeze to death.

Global warming, oops sorry, Climate change is just one big expensive con. Guess who's paying?



varien, Worcester says...
3:53pm Mon 3 Nov 08

Up until about the 1970's coal was king. I remember the 1950's when everyone had coal fires. Britain was still a great industrial nation with thousands of factory chimneys belching out clouds of smoke everywhere. There was a railway system that relied almost entirely on coal. We had smog every winter and some years it was so bad transport systems just ground to a halt. Surely it was worse then than it is now. Some recent statistics I saw stated that our air is much cleaner now than it was fifty years ago. So, where is the problem?
Just what is a "carbon footprint"? How big is "one tonne of CO2"? What the hell is "carbon off-setting"? These phrases are glibly banded about by so called experts on global warming/climate change without so much as an explanation as to what they really mean knowing that the majority of people won't question it as they don't wish to appear ignorant.
Yes, we're all being taken for a ride.
Footnote:-
Definition of an "expert". An ex.. is a has-been and a ...spurt is a drip under pressure.
Irony:- The security word for this comment to be entered was 'coal-face'

Your sayYour Worcester

comment Add your comment

Register for a FREE Worcester News account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.

Please register now or sign in below to continue.


LOCAL ADVERTISERS

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »