Aileen’s second reply to Elspeth Russell is in the Herald today + another one from Norman McNab
Just the tip of the iceberg
IN response to Elspeth Russell (Letters, October 11, Would you rather live beside a turbine or a mine) can I say first of all that she is again confusing a single turbine with a wind farm which consists of multiple turbines, Whitelee’s 215 for example.
Perhaps she should ask residents in Fairlie if they preferred living beside a nuclear power station or two wind turbines. They didn’t complain about the power station which provided reliable energy and full-time permanent jobs for local people but there were multiple complaints for many years about the Hunterston turbines, which have now been decommissioned.
Your correspondent might also be interested to know that wind farms require up to 162 times more land than a nuclear power station to produce the same amount of energy.
With regards to open cast mining, I was born in Ayrshire in the 1950s and I am well acquainted with the environmental devastation it brings. Wind farm developers often use the excuse that the landscape in these areas is already degraded (so we might as well degrade it even more) in order to enhance their chances of being awarded planning consent, with the result that many communities are now completely surrounded with wind farms with never-ending applications for more. New Cumnock is a prime example.
The turbines which most people see at the moment while driving along the motorway are the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands more in the planning system at twice the height with some applications requesting “lifetime” permission. I think I rest my case.
Aileen Jackson, Uplawmoor.
We have to stop building more wind farms
WE already have invested too much in wind power: an energy resource which is intermittent, unpredictable, hence non-dispatchable and lacking the essential synchronous and inertia physical attributes of all other methods of producing electrical energy. To make wind viable will require vast energy storage solutions which alone go far beyond Scotland’s physical geography and finances to accommodate.
If we pursue a strategy of depending on wind power, we will not only destroy Scotland’s landscape and ecology, we will inflict absolute misery on its people.
The great tragedy is that we have arrived at this position because, unlike most human activities, the media has happily accepted everything that organisations like Scottish Renewables and their backers claim without challenge. Why is this? I believe there are three reasons.
First, few journalists have appropriate knowledge and accept at face value what the renewables industry say.
Second, the renewables industry has powerful marketing resources backed by vested interests who stand to gain considerable income (sadly, many foreign venture capitalists and wealthy land owners are on a win-win ticket while trivial financial benefit and damage is Scotland’s reward).
Third, the idea that wind power is cheap and will save the planet is very compelling. The truth is uncomfortable and there is a natural human inclination to accept the promise of a happy future. It is here that real danger resides because the solution is political and the future is ugly. Politicians don’t thrive on truth since the necessary legislation would be very unpopular. The SNP’s supine acceptance of Scottish Renewables’ advice is a tragedy. However, it is unfair to vilify the SNP when the other political parties are effectively singing from the same hymn sheet.
An essential utility like power distribution cannot be managed by “the market”. Ideally the electricity industry should be renationalised, but failing that an appropriately-skilled independent body should be created to advise government on energy strategy. Is Sir Keir Starmer listening?
For now, an immediate requirement is to stop building any more wind turbines in Scotland.
Norman McNab, Killearn.
0 Comments