Scotsman (Letters)

Letters: All wind and solar and not enough gas, nuclear and coal will mean
energy crisis

I note a plea from Keith Anderson, chief executive of Scottish Power (The
Scotsman, 25 September) that the government and regulators should back the
development of the wind industry in Scotland in order to keep up with an
anticipated increase in demand.

He then states: “It’s now cheaper, easier and faster to build onshore
wind.” So as wind farms become cheaper to build, the plea for subsidies
continues. No wonder, as wind farms owners are paid whether their output is
used or not.

What a wonderful position to be in. No wonder the providers want more
subsidies to build more wind farms to provide energy to more homes.

There is just a small problem that he forgot to mention. What happens when
the wind refuses to blow? In my letter of 20 September I pointed out that
per the GB National Grid status 17/9, wind produced 4.81 per cent of demand
and the day after this it had fallen to 1.72 per cent. This morning the
National Grid meter shows a contribution of wind at 3.53 per cent of total
GB demand.

The wind turbine behind our house is having a complete rest. As previously
stated, the GB installed capacity is over 16GW, just now wind provides
1.31GW or 8 per cent of installed capacity. I wonder how many thousands of
houses are benefitting from wind energy just now?

Instead of building more wind capacity, perhaps Scottish Power (and the
government) should think about maintaining enough dispat­chable energy so
that we do not end up with a repeat of the three-day week, but for entirely
different reasons. Too much wind and solar installed and not enough gas,
nuclear and coal will lead to inevitable gaps when the wind and sun refuse
to co-operate and the thermometer drops, adding to the shortage of energy.

Dr A McCormick in his letter of 25 September clearly demonstrated that
battery and hydro storage are not viable solutions to the potential energy
gap problem.

John Peter
Monks Road, Airdrie

I attended a conference in Glasgow on 22 September on infrasound in
relation to wind turbines and the effect on people’s health.

A concerned group of acousticians have formed an independent noise working
group because of concerns that a proportion of people living in proximity
of turbines report similar symptoms of ill-health all over the world.

It is surprising that the industry and government dismiss this problem,
considering that in the history of the world people have never lived next
to anything like these structures.

The message to sufferers is that it is a psychological problem.

The presentations by two well-qualified acousticians, one from France and
one from the United Kingdom, and from a Portuguese professor into health
effects convinced me there is a problem.

Infrasound is not measured in the environmental statements used to assess
wind farms. “A”-weighted decibels are used, which were devised in the 1930s
for telephones and only measure the audible range.

The wind farms conform to current regulations, but these result in
assessing the measurement of sound excluding the vital low frequencies.

Not all people complain, but then everyone responds differently.

The professor proved to me from her investigations that infrasound can
produce physiological harm. Her funding has been stopped.

The industry will not be worried about compensation claims because they
will say they followed regulations.

It will be the public who would have to pick up the tab because of
ignorance in government of scientific matters.

Urgent research and resources are needed to pursue this work.

It is inhumane to have sufferers being bounced between the National Health
Service and environmental health with no one taking responsibility.

Celia Hobbs
Peebles Road, Penicuik