SIR – It seems some correspondents believe I am “negative” about wind-power, but that’s not the case: I simply use facts and logic, something often missing in this debate.
For example, no matter how many wind-turbines are erected, it will never cause a single ‘traditional’ power station to be eliminated. That’s because we always need enough ‘traditional’ capacity to cover the peak demand, we simply cannot rely on the wind to blow when we need it.
And we can’t just turn on a big power station, it needs time to get up to operating spec. Therefore, why even bother with the windmills when we still need the others running anyway?
Renewable energy is an excellent idea, which I support with logic and facts, but tidal power is only embryonic and, for some reason (lack of grant profit, probably), we never optimise river-flow, an energy source which is far more reliable than wind will ever be, while having none of its obvious downsides.
As I have written before, this important debate deserves to be conducted with facts rather than mere evangelical faith. Let’s be open about all the facts then we might just arrive at the right solutions.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article