Opinions
The short answer, Richard, is to ask why lemmings throw themselves over cliffs.
I will try to give a more reasoned answer. Firstly, over the last 10 years or so, most governments have signed international agreements to reduce their carbon emissions.
Wind energy is high on the list of means because, in Richard's own words, each wind turbine generates electricity without burning fossil fuels or emitting greenhouse gases.
This has become the mantra of the "greens", to be trotted out whenever they are challenged.
Governments see political advantage in fostering the growth of such a visible tribute to their green credentials.
However, as accurate as Richard's description of a wind turbine is, the fact remains that they are of limited value.
Another of his statements - this time probably untrue - is that a turbine pays for its carbon emissions in manufacture and installation, in less than a year.
During the year in question, the turbine has probably operated for only three to four months.
Is it credible that, during that time, its output could provide for the quarrying, metallurgy, foundry operations, cement manufacture, site road construction, digging and transport?
I think not, by a long chalk. Even if its annual output is enough to cancel its own carbon footprint, one must compare it with, say, a nuclear power station whose footprint may be no larger than that of the thousands of turbines it would replace, and whose life expectancy would be much greater than 20 years.
Secondly, there is a presumption that mixed energy sources are the way forward.
It doesn't seem to matter that wind farms are inefficient - in some unspecified and unplanned way wind, tidal, solar, nuclear and other sources will dovetail.
That is dangerous nonsense because we may not have time to arrive at this desirable state of affairs.
France is 80 per cent nuclear: the French haven't dithered over their future energy supply.
Denmark plumped for wind energy, the country being an ugly forest of turbines today.
The result? In 2006 the turbines were so inefficient that Danish carbon emissions actually increased as fossil fuel power stations plugged the energy gap. The Danish tourist industry is paying the price!
Thirdly, wind farms are heavily subsidised and together with weak planning laws this has encouraged energy companies, many of them foreign to the countries in which they operate, to build wind farms, almost ad lib, and to issue the necessary commercial propaganda to win over public and politicians alike.
I predict that in 50 years time we will see wind farms as avoidable mistakes and their only legacy will be a few thousand acres of land rendered unusable for agricultural purposes by thousands of concrete bases.
| < prev | next > |



