[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind is not as good as it looks  

A nice try by Gordon James, of Friends of the Earth (Letters, August 1), at obfuscation, but his links regarding electrical wind energy and climate change have little foundation in truth!

For example, his claim that all I can do is to vilify wind energy is based on a misguided assumption on his part – for his edification I am not only totally against wind farms in the UK, but also nuclear energy. Astronomy being one of my hobbies, I am also against light pollution.

But I am fully in favour of tidal (both barrage and lagoon), wave, ocean current, hydro, co-generation, solar, geo-thermal, low energy devices and so on – his arguments suggest either a hidden agenda or betray an ignorance of the power generation industry and a naivety to the causes of atmospheric pollution.

Indeed, I wonder if Gordon James has worked in, or even visited a working power station? For my part, I have worked at Iron Bridge (fossil fuelled), Trawsfynydd (nuclear – now decommissioned), Dinorwic (pumped storage), Rheidol (hydro) – I mention this only in an effort to stop him making any other ill-founded statements and causing embarrassment to himself!

Regarding renewables, he claims that wind power is the most cost-effective, but surely he is aware of the heavy subsidy we are all (including himself) paying in an attempt to make wind energy viable?

Indeed, Paul Goby, the chief executive of E.On UK, said: “Without the renewable obligations certificates nobody would be building wind farms.”

Has he already forgotten the power blackout (outage) across the continent in November 2006 which affected over 10 million Europeans, and that the reconnection and resynchronisation of the three fragmented areas was complicated by wind being out of the control of TSO’s – embedded in the outer network and not “visible” to grid instrumentation?

Perhaps Mr James would be good enough to explain why Germany, which has 17,000 wind generators, is now considering the building of up to 26 coal-fired power stations – is it because they have woken up to the folly of their ways and found the real necessity for reliable back-up? So much for wind generation then?

I am glad he mentions floods in his letter, as he of all people should recognise the disastrous effect significant tree felling and the laying of concrete required for large wind generators will have upon the water retention properties on the hills in Wales.

Large scale felling on forestry land will mean that water will move much more rapidly from the upland areas down into the lower valley plains – the Forestry Commission will be felling thousands of trees to enable over 100, 100m-high turbines to be built on it’s land.

As Mr James claims he is a “Friend of the Earth” why is he supporting the industrialisation and ruination of acres and acres of beautiful Welsh countryside with these ineffective monstrosities, especially at the expense of the Welsh people and future generations?

With friends like that, the Earth does not need any enemies!

Dave Haskell

Golygfa Frenni Fawr

Newchapel Road

Boncath

Evening Post

15 August 2007

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter