Article

We have been sold a lie about wind power

Further to your article, Battle of the blades (November 24), no matter how many turbines are built, not one fossil-fuelled power station will close. The Scottish people have been sold a lie; wind energy just doesn't do what we are being told it will do. Owing to the very fickle nature of wind and the fact that it will only produce electricity when winds blow between roughly 5-50mph, we still need our base-load power stations to click in, when required. Wind turbines will only work up to about 30% of the time, yet our base-load stations will still have to run continuously, but at an inefficient level, to support wind power.

Further to your article, Battle of the blades (November 24), no matter how many turbines are built, not one fossil-fuelled power station will close. The Scottish people have been sold a lie; wind energy just doesn't do what we are being told it will do. Owing to the very fickle nature of wind and the fact that it will only produce electricity when winds blow between roughly 5-50mph, we still need our base-load power stations to click in, when required. Wind turbines will only work up to about 30% of the time, yet our base-load stations will still have to run continuously, but at an inefficient level, to support wind power.

This inefficiency is thus responsible for producing more CO2. You just cannot have wind generation without a support base. You could cover the whole of Scotland with turbines and we would still need our fossil-fuelled base stations or more hydro stations, if nuclear is not acceptable, to provide the back-up. Without such a provision, there will be days when the lights will go out or won't come on.

For proof, see E.ON Netz's "Wind Report 2005", which states that "wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant degree". As one of Germany's biggest grid... more [truncated due to possible copyright]  

Further to your article, Battle of the blades (November 24), no matter how many turbines are built, not one fossil-fuelled power station will close. The Scottish people have been sold a lie; wind energy just doesn't do what we are being told it will do. Owing to the very fickle nature of wind and the fact that it will only produce electricity when winds blow between roughly 5-50mph, we still need our base-load power stations to click in, when required. Wind turbines will only work up to about 30% of the time, yet our base-load stations will still have to run continuously, but at an inefficient level, to support wind power.

This inefficiency is thus responsible for producing more CO2. You just cannot have wind generation without a support base. You could cover the whole of Scotland with turbines and we would still need our fossil-fuelled base stations or more hydro stations, if nuclear is not acceptable, to provide the back-up. Without such a provision, there will be days when the lights will go out or won't come on.

For proof, see E.ON Netz's "Wind Report 2005", which states that "wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant degree". As one of Germany's biggest grid operators, with a responsibility for the integration of 7000MW of wind power, nearly half of Germany's total, it should know.

In Scotland, most wind turbines will be placed on our high moorlands, which we all associate with peat and bog, yet this type of countryside is also one of nature's very own ways of absorbing CO2. So, we are going to destroy this fragile environment, to replace it with something that actually produces CO2.

In comparing CO2 factors, it is necessary to consider all elements of construction for all types of power generation. One must take the manufacture of all component parts, their transportation, installation, manufacture of concrete and subsequent decommissioning into consideration. When you do this, wind energy compares very unfavourably with other forms of power.

The only people who will benefit from wind energy will be the development companies, their financiers and the landowners, on whose land the turbines will be built, due to the marketing of renewable obligation certificates, which drives the cost of wind electricity higher than it needs to be. Because of this scam, supported and condoned by the government, we, the consumers, are paying more for our wind power than we should be. Isn't it about time that the whole power industry was brought into focus, with all the facts presented to the public and not the half-truth which we get at present? Your article has no comments from qualified engineers, knowledgeable about the technical implications of wind power.

There is possibly a small place for wind turbines, but not at the cost of destroying our beautiful country. I am concerned about the escalating problem of fuel shortage and increased carbon emissions, but let's look at the cause of this and effect cures rather than trying to treat the symptoms. We need to change our own lives and reduce our dependence on all forms of power. Why must all our city-centre shops be lit up like Christmas trees, when they are shut? Why do we need so much lighting on our motorways? Low-energy bulbs should be the only type sold and none of our electronic gadgets should be capable of being left on stand-by. Better insulation on all new builds will also reduce our power consumption and help reduce carbon emission. Our standard of living will not fall, but our way of life might change. We will still have our countryside to enjoy and appreciate.


Source: http://www.theherald.co.uk/...

NOV 25 2006
https://www.windaction.org/posts/5958-we-have-been-sold-a-lie-about-wind-power
back to top