The whole debate about windfarms seems to be based on their aesthetics and environmental impact, which is to entirely miss the point.
By all means sacrifice Cumbria, indeed the whole UK, to the greater good if this will make any measurable difference to global warming ““ but it will not.
Hitherto the debate has been conducted in a series of elementary sound bites that have convinced the uninformed that if wind is free, wind power must be cheap. It is not.
Take away subsidies and there would be no new windfarms.
There are numerous papers from eminent scientists and electrical engineers that explain why windfarms do not and are most unlikely ever to make a significant contribution.
The enthusiasm for them comes from politicians and the green lobby who like to persuade themselves that they are doing something to tackle climate change and from windfarm operators/land owners who make quite a lot of money out of it.
I understand that some time ago, local authorities received a directive from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister stating that in their planning deliberations, they were not permitted to take into account the efficiency or otherwise of windfarms. I find this appalling.
While money is being poured into highly visible but inefficient windfarms, research and investment in other forms of renewable energy, such as hydro schemes, is reduced.
Germany has more windfarms than any other country and yet has been unable to decommission a single conventional power station. I understand that they are not building any more.
My opposition to windfarms is not because they are not pretty, it is because they are a con, in that they don’t deliver and will not help save the planet, and support for them takes away from other technologies that really might make a difference.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding