EVERY now and then one of your readers will write on the subject of
renewable energy. This usually prompts a response after the letter by other
regular readers (they know who they are) decrying such renewable sources as
“windmills” (sic), with “the huge amount of concrete and steel used in
their construction “not to mention the bird ‘slaughter’”. It’s almost as if
power stations using fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal – or nuclear ones,
for that matter – were “concrete-free”. Much of the construction material
in the latter stations can be recycled; however, it takes a bit more effort
and money to recycle the fuel of nuclear power stations.
When it comes to bird and bat deaths – yes, birds have been known to fly
into wind turbine blades with deadly results, but the total numbers are
fairly well known (except to the hysterical “smash the windmills” brigades.
Collisions with these turbines kill approximately 33,000 birds in the UK
every year (Wibley Bird Guide figure). This is certainly a high number, but
should be put into some sort of context by comparing it to other causes of
bird mortality.
Wind turbines are, I believe, an “easy target” since they are more visible
and, I’d suggest, more “obvious”. However, their impact is dwarfed by cars
(two million per annum), pesticides (three million), cats four million) and
high tension wires (180 million). However, the biggest “killers” by far are
glass windows (100-1000m every year). So, unless we want to give up our
windows, domestic electricity and motor vehicles, maybe it would be best to
get educated on the subject, rather than giving knee-jerk reactions.
Barry Lees,
12 Denholm Street, Greenock.
ALAN Sangster (Letters, April 16) attacks my letter of April 12 on wind
power. In my letter I presented six statistics which are 100 per cent
factual whereas Mr Sangster, typically of those who promote renewables,
presents no numbers, preferring instead phrases like “rapid” and “massive”.
Mr Sangster claims that Britain’s four hydro pumped storage schemes are
capable of providing more power than Hinkley nuclear power station. He
doesn’t specify which Hinkley but, assuming he means Hinkley C, this is
wrong. Hinkley C is 3,200 MW (megawatts) whereas the four pumped hydro
schemes are 2,788 MW in total. But crucially, nuclear stations can
continually generate for around 18 months whereas our four pumped hydro
schemes would run out of water in under 24 hours.
If Britain were to construct a pumped hydro fleet of sufficient size to
provide for when renewables can’t cope we would need in the order of 300
schemes minimum. SSE has had planning permission to build scheme number
five for several years but hasn’t begun construction because it’s not
economically viable.
Mr Sangster talks about “rapid developments” in battery technology.
Actually, scientists have been seriously developing batteries since the
First World War, spurred on by submarine warfare. Battery efficiency is
measured by a combination of cost, size/weight, charging losses and time
till battery replacement is needed. Studies suggest that, since the First
World War, battery efficiency has only increased five to seven fold. For
batteries to power Britain their efficiency would need to improve 100-fold
at a minimum.
Geoff Moore,
Braeface Park, Alness.
JUDGING by recent remarks regarding energy, your reader just arrived from
Mars might think that we are still in the dark ages, relying on wind and
sun for our power, plus various other schemes such as dropping weights down
mineshafts and burning wood; while discarding nuclear fission, a clever
process that makes cheap and endless electricity without atmospheric
pollution.
We are not yet in the dark ages, but certainly just about to enter them.
Malcolm Parkin,
Gamekeepers Road, Kinnesswood, Kinross.
0 Comments