MABRAKE – Milton Abbot, BRadstone And KElly Action group.

Green policies to add £110 to energy bills – Telegraph.

That’s if you believe the Committee on Climate Change….

From the North Devon Gazette 7th December 2011

SIR – Last week’s letters from the Green Party, shows how difficult it is to defend wind turbines. Is this why they are not being supported by the LibLabCon, whose policies are forcing the turbines on us, while hiding the cost in our heating bills?

Ricky Knight’s ‘explanation’ of low wind on two days, avoids the fact that the UK’s wind turbines produced just 24 per cent of their capacity in 2010. In case he says it was a freak year, the figure for 2009 was 31 per cent. It gets worse. Eon (the German power company) told a Parliamentary Select Committee, the UK will always need to provide 92 per cent back up power for wind turbines. This ‘killer’ statistic means they are a pointless luxury, because they can never replace a single power station.

Rosemary Haworth-Booth tried to dismiss the KPMG report (which said wind turbines are too expensive), by claiming it was leaked out in draft form. Sorry, but the report entitled ‘Thinking about the Affordable’ was released to the media by its author, Mark Powell who also gave media interviews. I

f Rosemary had read the report, she would know that it did not blame turbines for energy prices doubling in five years, but did say 7.25 million households would be plunged into fuel poverty in four years, as the cost of wind power really starts to kick in. The cost of energy may not be important to the Green Party, but I can assure them, that it is very important to the rest of us. To be fair though, it is also LibLabCon policy to put up our energy bills to pay the £34billion bill for the turbines.

As for the claim that turbines have popular support, she really should get out more. If Rosemary had attended her Party’s meeting on November 8, she would have heard that letters to our North Devon Press are 80/20 against. This answer was given to the accusation that the Press is biased against turbines! To dismiss the Lundy Array because it is 14 kms from land is extraordinary, as to you and me, this is just 8.5 miles. A neighbour told me this week that the Fullabrook turbines are 4 miles away.

The prospect of more nuclear power is not welcomed by anyone, but it is the only practical solution, for the CONSTANT, low Co2 power the country needs, that it not dependant upon World prices. We could be using Thorium instead of Uranium, like the new nuclear power station in India. Thorium is nothing like as ‘nasty’ as Uranium, will not go into ‘meltdown’, and is even found in Cornwall. So come on you engineers and physicists, give us the same solution, or the Indians will have to build our new power stations!

Michael Pagram

Following from the North Devon Gazette 7th December 2011

SIR – Further to Mr Ricky Knight’s letter in the North Devon Gazette on 30 November 2011, I would like to make the following comments:

I would like to clarify that I am fully aware of the Government report Mr Crone’s presentation was based on. I personally feel that these targets are neither realistic nor economically viable or even necessary, nor will they achieve the aim of reducing emissions (that is if you actually agree that CO2 is a pollutant).

Maybe Mr Knight can explain what we will be eating, if such a large proportion of our electricity will come from biomass?

The electricity generated on November 14-15, 2011 shows a relatively average output for wind power. There are many days and sometimes whole periods when the wind does not blow across the UK and parts of Northern Europe and output is close to zero. The problem is that this variability and unpredictability will ensure that wind power requires back-up to be available at all times. Back-up is currently provided by traditional power stations and the assumption that everybody will drive electric cars and power the grid when these cars are not in use, is in my view still ludicrous.

I doubt very much that wind power provides on average five per cent of our electricity needs and even if it did, it is not reliable or controllable output, which is what the UK needs.

On another point, Mr Knight would maybe like to justify why lives are being destroyed for something that is overly expensive, unreliable and requires back-up (which can increase emissions)? Maybe, Mr Knight would like to explain to the people who live near Fullabrook or other wind power stations in Devon and the rest of the UK, who have their lives blighted by noise and shadow flicker, why they have to suffer for a trickle of expensive electricity, which could be provided by just one power station?

I really cannot see why Mr Knight wants to know what my fix is, but I can confirm that it certainly is not wind power and it never will be. I have no issues with nuclear and for those who oppose the use of uranium, maybe thorium could be the answer?

One thing is for sure: I am all in favour of reliable, low-cost electricity generation and I do not believe that the economical and ecological impacts of wind power will ever be outweighed by the tiny trickle of expensive electricity. The ouput from all the turbines in the UK could be replaced by one power station – that seems the logical solution to me and billions of pounds would be saved (together with our wildlife) and fuel poverty would be reduced.

Mr Knight wants to wean us off the dirty brown stuff? I can only smell one sort and I hope Mr Knight will enjoy sitting in the dark, when the lights finally do go out, should this reliance on wind power go ahead…

Has he not realized that Germany has an enormous number of turbines – that CO2 emissions have increased and that several new coal-fired power stations are being built? Wind power has been tried and tested and it just does not come up to scratch…

Anna Grabis,

Wind Turbines: bonfires-on-a-stick

4th Sep 10

 

From todays Telegraph Monday 12th December

Over-reliance on wind farms will lead to power cuts – Telegraph.

Sadly the Government doesn’t seem to like criticism!