Supporters of Wind Turbines
don't live near them
Recent news on energy

Summarised from three letters in the national press published on the same day:

    .....Andrew Whalley of REG Windpower (letters, Oct 9) claims that 70 per cent of British people support onshore wind power.

    This is not really surprising, because at least 70 per cent of the British public live in places where these unsightly and inefficient machines are unlikely to be erected.

    The main function of turbines seems to be that of making a fortune for the companies (most of them not British) which promote and develop them.

    EPM, Inverness

    .....If Mr. Whalley looked with disinterested eyes at the evidence on his product, he would realise that the reason for our poor energy security is that 25 per cent of our energy capacity is invested in wind power.

    Wind turbines are spectacularly unreliable and have nothing to justify their use, except for the enormous subsidies which are paid to him and his colleagues by the taxpayer and end user.

    PW, Shrewsbury, Salop

    .....If, as Mr. Whalley suggests, onshore wind power is considerably less expensive than other forms of generation, the Government should withdraw the subsidy to companies like his, which the consumer pays through higher electricity bills.

    SA, Felbridge, Surrey.

      The energy department says that it is working to ensure the UKs energy security. However, readers of this website will be aware that if present policies continue, the opposite effect will be achieved.

      I'll leave the last word on this page to ....

      A big problem is the maths-science-engineering-any-difficult-subject-free education of many politicians, along with a proliferation of lawyers.

      Engineers know that the only two energy sources that can power a western civilisation are hydrocarbon fuels and nuclear fission. That has been the case since the 1950s and remains so today.

      There is simply not enough energy in wind, waves and the UK sun to make the effort of extracting it for national power generation worth while.

      Furthermore, the intermittent nature of all of the renewable sources requires backup from powered up spinning thermal power stations. Therefore, since we have to have the thermal power stations anyway, we don't need the renewable systems at all.

      However, the politicians thought they knew better than the engineers, and after wasting billions of pounds have succeeded in proving that the engineers were right all along, as they always are about engineering matters.

      The biggest problem, though, is the total lack of any real evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever had any effect on the climate.

      There is no empirical evidence at all that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the climate.

      Citing the output of computer models as evidence is a dishonest circular argument, since computers only produce what they are configured to.


Back to top

Energy Policy
Nuclear Power
Wind -
big turbines
Wind -
small turbines
Diversity Website