Login Register

In my opinion: Wind turbines are part of the solution to energy crisis

By Western Morning News  |  Posted: November 23, 2012

Comments (0)

I have considerable sympathy for those adversely affected by wind turbines and I do not doubt that we should compensate them for past suffering and do what can be done to alleviate future suffering. I also have some sympathy for those who dislike the appearance of the things. However, you should keep in mind that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that some may find them beautiful. For myself, I consider that a single turbine by itself has a certain futuristic beauty, but a gaggle of them are a blot on the landscape.

However, I urge those opposed to wind turbines and other forms of renewable energy to look at the broader picture.

Since the advent of the industrial revolution, our civilisation has been almost totally dependent on fossil fuels. These have two disadvantages, both of which are becoming increasingly urgent, namely that supplies are inherently limited and that they are polluting. More recently, nuclear power, in the form of nuclear fission, has become available, but this suffers the same two disadvantages, together with the problems of radioactivity and of disposal of waste and, at the end of its useful life, the plant itself.

For as long as I can remember, and I am in my seventh decade, nuclear fusion, with potentially unlimited power, has been on the horizon, 10 or 20 years in the future; unfortunately, it still seems to be 10 or 20 years in the future. Given how long it has been worked on, with so little success, I think we have to discount fusion as a potential source of power for the foreseeable future.

Demand for energy is likely to increase. Although considerable progress has been, and continues to be, made in reducing power consumption of various appliances, overall, energy requirements will rise.

The three main forms of fossil fuel – coal, oil and gas – are all becoming more and more difficult to find. Some day these fuels will all be gone. Whether that day comes soon or not so soon we cannot say, but either our children or our children's children will have to face it, even if we do not.

We all accept that wind turbines by themselves are not going to satisfy our need for energy. They are one part of an energy strategy that includes other forms of renewable energy, and, at least for some time, nuclear. We may not like the things but they are necessary and I urge you to accept them.

Read more from Western Morning News

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • letigre  |  November 27 2012, 8:24PM

    This is either quaintly delusional or I suspect R1ch77 has hit the nail on the head about this propaganda. At what point do several "single" turbines become a "gaggle"? You only have to drive down the A30 to see that several areas are increasingly becoming one giant wind farm and as the author says "are a blot on the landscape." Unlike a few isolated wind farms however people are now actually expected to live surrounded by these single ones in what is becoming one giant wind farm. I personally don't mind the wind farm I can see over 2 miles away I can't say I've ever given it much thought apart from wondering why it never seems to actually operate. The 90m turbine that kept me awake until 5am this morning however I have developed very strong feelings towards, but that's ok, it's only a single turbine. People are opposed to wind turbines for this very reason, it doesn't mean they oppose other forms of renewable technologies, we have PV and solar hot water which quietly satisfies our needs, has no impact on neighbours and is seamlessly integrated into the built environment. The same can not be said for turbines be that single, pairs or a whole farm.

    |   1
  • johndavies  |  November 24 2012, 5:23PM

    Wind turbines are a nice bit of kinetic art & a brilliant cash investment (entirely due to subsidies ) …but pi*s poor at supplying electricity. According to Department of Energy & Climate Change ( DECC ) figs – (see Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics ( DUKES) http://tinyurl.com/n4k7n8 ) See Pages 121, 140, 160, 186 Last year- 2011, renewables supplied 9.4% of total heat & power demand, of that 7.5 % was hydro & solar, 77.1% was bio-fuels, (landfill gas was 19%) 15.4% was wind, which works out to just 1.44% of total heat & power demand. OR For electric power only, wind generated 15,498 GWh In these proportions - on land = 2.77 % of total electrical demand. offshore = 1.37 % " " " Total = 4.14 % " " " On-shore wind turbines are inefficient and only make a negligible contribution to our energy needs, but at a cost of £ billions on our bills (going to foreign investors). The very fact they need a synchronized running reserve (running fossil fuel plants inefficiently so they produce CO2 but little electricity ) makes a nonsense of any carbon savings made from wind. As I write this, the UKs entire 4,136 wind turbine fleet is producing- MW just … 1.2% of demand !!! If you want to see what really happening & where your power comes from in real time, see - http://tinyurl.com/6ja8btf

    |   5
  • R1ch77  |  November 23 2012, 5:21PM

    I'm reading a book called the "The Source Field Investigations" by David Wilcock and on page 25 David Wilcock mentions he was a featured guest on Coast to Coast AM radio program (largest nighttime talk-radio program in the US) on May 15th, 2004 with Art Bell and Richard Hoagland. A few days before this program he finds out Dr. Eugene Mallove was going to come on this program as a surprise special guest and he was going to make a stunning announcement. Hoagland and Mallove were going to visit Washington DC the following week, and bring along a working, tabletop free-energy device. Hoagland had lined up various senators and congressman to demonstrate the device and push for these breakthroughs to be released to the public for study and commercial application. Less than 24 hours before that radio program on Coast to Coast Dr. Mallove was bludgeoned to death outside his parents home ..."

    |   -3
  • R1ch77  |  November 23 2012, 1:14PM

    "We may not like the things but they are necessary and I urge you to accept them." last sentence of the article, hmm, impartial reporting?, or something else, could this possibly be media backed propoganda to plant the seeds carefully, using clever wording to cultivate mass opinion and the continual march towards our oppression by successive governemnts in collaboration with world organistaions and agendas. For those interested, research thoroughly Agenda 21, research Nikola Tesla, google search for scientists and articles that don't support the argument that humanity is causing climate change, for starters anyway. For those not interested, carry on as normal and just accept what you are told.

    |   1
  • R1ch77  |  November 23 2012, 12:14PM

    easy to give a thumbs down without comment, how about you back it up with some input. @ rubydogsouth, plants need C02 to breathe. The amoutn of c02 we produce unnaturally is minimal and not enough as we are expected to believe to affect climate change. However, this comment will probably be removed because all media and government agencies have signed up to Agenda 21 (heard of that? thought not) look into it and learn. Cue the dislikes without actual response, enjoy you flrouidated water and GM food. :-)

  • R1ch77  |  November 23 2012, 12:04PM

    Rubydogsouth Plants breathe C02. Cue dislikes again by all the sheep who believe all they are told by the media and government. Enjoy your flouride filled water and GM food :-)

    |   -1
  • R1ch77  |  November 23 2012, 11:13AM

    http://tinyurl.com/6mtynvu for starters. Was supressed by the government for 90 years! Why??? yet rather than this being the buzz, we all have to have dangerous mercury filled energy saving bulbs that are poisonous and highly dangerous is they break in the home and pollute the environment when not disposed of properly. (ie the mercury gets into the water)

  • R1ch77  |  November 23 2012, 10:55AM

    While your at it, look into Tesla, and hios concept of free energy, that HAS been invented, then ask yourself, why has this been suppressed. Why are we being told the only option is wind turbines, why are is the government lying.

    |   -3
  • DaveP  |  November 23 2012, 9:59AM

    Ruby..well, I happen to think co2 is harmless plant food which is not driving any man made climate change. Shale gas can act as a temporary bridge to the future when we will be harnessing new fossil free power generation technologies; thorium nuclear, or whatever. An engineer has commented in todays telegraph that wind needs 105% back up from mainly gas (forget hydro), so bird mincing wind is worse than useless in co2 saving. If you want to "save the planet" you are welcome to live in a yurt with no services. Personally I want to live in the 21st. century and not go back to stone age living.

    |   -7
  • rubydogsouth  |  November 23 2012, 9:34AM

    DaveP has completely missed the point you cannot keep pumping Co2 in to our atmosphere regardless of how much shale gas and other carbon based fuel are left or cost. I suggest the only ignorant ones hear are those who believe we can.

    |   8