Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Mistake to sacrifice our landscape to unpredictable wind power schemes

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 16 April 2008
What a brave article ("Wind farms or peat bogs: Scotland's green dilemma", 15 April), at last you are beginning to tweak out some of the hidden truths of which many of us who have campaigning to have wind farms put anywhere but in our national and regional parks have been well aware. If only wind farms were the solution, then life could be simpler.
No-one can predict when these machines will supply power. They need a power station ticking over in the background at 70 per cent in case the wind drops and they can't supply. Take away the renewables obligation subsidy, which should appear on your e
nergy bill but doesn't, and they are uneconomic. They add to fuel cost inflation.

Sadly, some politicians look on them with pride because they think they are a sound solution without regard to the whole picture.

THOMAS BEGG
Church Street
Lochwinnoch, Renfrewshire

The Scottish skiing season is expected to extend into May (your report, 12 April). What is more, it is almost a decade since the global high temperature record was last broken, with world temperatures now flat-lining or falling.

The time has surely come for the people of Scotland to realise that man-made global warming possibly never was or, if it was, that it has come to an end. Time to polish up your skis, skates and curling stones and enjoy the real delights of the Highlands as winter takes hold again. But we warn you that your wind turbines may become even less productive than the last year's 27 per cent of maximum, as ice and snow play havoc with blades and transmission lines.

(DR) DAVID BELLAMY
Bishop Auckland
County Durham


(DR) JOHN ETHERINGTON
Llanhowell
Pembrokeshire


G M Lindsay's expert demolition of wind power claims is a stark reminder we're being conned. It's just a wheeze to let politicians seem active and their industrial friends make money.

Politicians' behaviour shows they don't believe their own claims of climatic disaster. Switch off room lights and TV remote controls, they order. Yet buildings remain floodlit and retailers have masses of TV sets on all day.

Even more laughable is their deadline for avoiding the death of the planet. First it was 2011, according to Kyoto. Then Kofi Annan declared 2015 absolutely the last chance.

They have two reasons for endless extension of Destruction Day. First, they know that people, themselves included, will never give up the activities they identify as the danger.

Second, if we reach the appointed date with global warming still in full swing, there'll be no point in caring.

ROBERT DOW
Ormiston Road
Tranent, East Lothian


The decision by Scottish ministers to give their consent to proposals for a wind farm at Gordonbush (your report, 10 April) is premature. Many issues remain unresolved and lessons have not been learned from other wind farms constructed on deep peat.

It is a political decision rather than one based on best environmental practice. The site is inappropriate. Other industrial brownfield sites are available and should be used before damaging pristine areas of wilderness.

The Scottish Government is pushing through plans to export surplus renewable energy to Norway. To generate the surplus , many areas similar to Gordonbush will be lost. There may be short-term gains but there will be long-term losses which cannot be measured in financial terms.

ALLAN TUBB
Golspie
Sutherland




Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 15 April 2008 9:21 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 16/04/2008 01:46:34
We have concensus ! Wind turbines are a scam !

At long last the "Hootsmon" and Scotland are starting to see sense.
2

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 07:03:52
The wind generators are turning efficiently and reliably, keeping the lights on while Torness and Hunterston try to fix their leaking pipework.
3

Unimpressed one,

16/04/2008 08:23:24
See fred bloggs is ranting again. Can't wait to hear his stance once SNP eventually caves into accepting nuclear power and scrapping the windmills.
4

Kate,

Zurich 16/04/2008 08:51:19
My cousins get almost 70% of their whole household power from the single wind turbine set up outside their house and you can't hear it at all!

This is not being thought out properly, but is being panic mongered by the various lobbies.
5

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 08:55:25
The capacity factor for wind farms in Scotland is now higher than that for nuclear.
6

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 16/04/2008 09:04:48
DRs DAVID BELLAMY and JOHN ETHERINGTON continue their irresponsible campaign of misinformation.

The dip in global temperatures caused by the La Nina episode in the Pacific, which was at its most intense in January 2008, has produced a torrent of misleading and misinformed comment. Bellamy and Etherington join in with their usual lack of concern for the truth.

They claim, "world temperatures" are "now flat-lining or falling." In fact, the graph of annual global temperatures for the last thirty years or so (the period normally taken to indicate a trend) show an increase in global temperatures of about 0.19deg Celsius per decade, see:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1975.jpg
in
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/

That trend continues, and there is no statistically significant "flat-lining" or "falling" in recent years. Of course, in any series of data where there is considerable variation from the general trend, (as is the case with global temperatures), it is always possible to cherry-pick periods where temperatures fall for a few years - there have been several such times within the last thirty years, but the trend remains upwards.

As for the situation "now", if by that is meant this year, global temperatures have increased rapidly since the La Nina dip in January. These are the latest figures from NASA GISS and HADCRU, the two main compilations of global temperature:

NASA GISS:

Jan 2008 +0.31C above the global average for 1951-1980
Feb 2008 +0.33C ditto
Mar 2008 +0.81C ditto
See:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

HADCRU:

Jan 2008 +0.056C above global average for 1961-1990
Feb 2008 +0.194C ditto
Mar 2008 +0.430C ditto
See:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/monthly
7

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 10:11:28
Fred Blogs - wind farms are currently averaging 250mwhs this is 10% of our nuclear power stations when working at capacity. That they are not is because of the neglect (and non replacement) as we have followed the folly of renewables.
8

n/,

Perth 16/04/2008 11:52:15
Hunterston B is 1190MW and has been currently working at a 60% load factor because of age. The refurbishment target is 70% so that would be an average of 833MW.
BWEA says we have 2294MW worth of installed wind so using BERR'as average of 28% this will be an annual average of 642MW. So this supposed clapped out old Hunterston B wreck will give us more electricity than all the bleedin windmills in the kingdom.

I also note that Fred Bloggs#6 is still hawking the smoke and mirrors half truth of capacity factor for wind farms now being higher than nuclear. His hope would seem to be if you repeat something long enough the true facts will not emerge. It won't work sunshine..........you have been well and truly sussed.
9

n/,

Perth 16/04/2008 12:19:25
.......as for Fred Bloggs#2 saying,........ 'the wind generators are turning efficiently and reliably'? Looking out on the Braes of Doune this morning,I think he should have a rethink unless that is, we are to take it that seeing one or two in every three spinning intermittently is his idea of efficiency?
10

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 12:21:19
According to Ofgem's web site (I've just looked) as at 31st March there was 1,206,502 mws of installed capacity represented by wind farms in Scotland, not all is fully switched on yet. Fred Bloggs in 6# is quoting the total Salmond announcement that included hydro and chickenshit.

Nuclear capacity is 2,500,000 mws so at the 28% we would need 7 1/2 times the number of wind farms we have at present to generate the same electricity as the two clapped out old nuclear stations did when they were fully up and running. That is an an additional 7,500 30 storey high wind turbines spread across the Scottish hills.
11

n/,

Perth 16/04/2008 13:26:08

A chickenshit power plant?.....What a splendid idea and one I suspect all our politicians and the Scottish Government would be only too happy to vote for as long as it was supplied of course from the output of organic chickens!






12

Geomac 1,

Scotland 16/04/2008 13:29:40
Well said Robert Dow. The hypocrisy of politicians never ceases to amaze me. It's the old "don't do as I do, do as I say" syndrome at work. Also "we're not sure what we should be doing but we need to do something".
It's long past time for the myth often spouted by politicians and their acolytes that "Global Warming is the biggest threat to mankind" to be confined to the bin. Surely their are more pressing problems - paying the mortgage, paying fuel bills and sustainability of fuel and food, keeping the lights on - are a few which instantly spring to mind!
13

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 15:04:04
9. n:

According to the report elsewhere in this paper, both of the Hunterston 570MW reactors have been closed since February and now one of the Torness reactors is closed.

This leaves only one Torness reactor with a capacity of 682MW.

That means that the capacity factor of Scottish nuclear is now down to less than 27%.

The capacity factor for wind generation in Scotland is 33%.

QED
14

Geomac 1,

Kinross 16/04/2008 16:17:14
#14 Fred. I challenge you to build yourself a 10kW wind turbine to meet your home needs and then disconnect yourself from the grid.
That way, we would not be seeing you and your tree hugging support for subsidised wind turbines quite so often here on these post pages!!
15

fred bear,

Cheshire 16/04/2008 17:06:40
#14 I'm breaking my own rule again in arguing technically with you.

By selectively picking a date (now) you are claiming that the capacity factor of wind energy exceeds the availability of nuclear energy. Leaving out that you are comparing apples and pears here (one is an average over a period and the other is a snapshot), I could pick a date during the winter just ending when the entire country was covered by an anti cyclone where the percetage availability of wind was zero. The issue is one of the grid knowing what it can call on if required. If your figures are correct, 682MW of nuclear can be called on by the grid. The amount of wind available to the grid is unknown; it depends on the weather and could be zero. QED

The fact that 3 out of four reactors are unavailable merely shows that replacements for these reactors (and those in England and Wales), which, despite being a series of prototypes, have reliably contributed up to 30% of UK generation for thirty years, are long overdue.
16

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 18:17:05
14# I thought I had explained this before - it is because of the green agenda that our nuclear power stations have been neglected and indeed not replaced.

Between 2005 and 2006 CO2 emissions from Scottish electricity generation rose by 35% giving an overall rise for Scotland of 14%. This is entirely as a result of the green agenda designed to reduce CO2 emissions by fatuous windpower.

The rise in CO2 emissions for Scotland was the highest in the developed world. Well done Scottish greens.

Please don't use "QED" unless you know what you are talking about. Your knowledge is too scanty for that.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.