Regarding objections to wind turbines: representations to planning boards are supposed to pertain to practical matters of implementation, rather than the validity of the proposals. Hence in this instance we can be expected to comment on visual intrusion for residents and Peak District visitors, strobe noise etc. but not to question the merits of large scale wind generation.
But the proposals are so grossly misconceived that it makes sense for us to add to the growing chorus of criticism by knowledgeable voices that can neither be motivated by ‘nimbyism’ or vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Those interested in detailed explanation of the essential uselessness of wind turbines are referred to such reports as that by Professor David Elliott of the Energy and Environmental Research Unit, Milton Keynes, or James Oswald, engineering consultant and former head of research and development at Rolls-Royce Turbines, for the Renewable Energy Foundation, but, briefly, the problem with wind generation is as follows.
The output being intermittent and – in relative terms – very low, a massive so-called “back-up” system must remain in place. Since this system inevitably comprises a combination of fossil-fuel, nuclear and hydro power (both direct generation and pump storage) the variable and unpredictable wind generation element constitutes nothing more than a complication involving far more trouble and expense than is justified by its meagre contribution.
If in 25 years or so we are spending billions in getting rid of rusting forests of derelict wind turbines, we will look back on the folly of backing this pointless, discredited technology. When there are green technologies that could make a serious difference, it is sad to see such environmental vandalism.
3 July 2008
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding