Wind power creates hope and new jobs

Published in Letters by

PHILIP ROE’S reply (Letters, November 26) to my letter about the link between North Yorkshire floods, climate change, and opposition to wind turbines is an example of the shortsighted thinking I sought to query.

Perhaps Mr Roe reveals his true colours when he seeks to cast doubt on the reality of man-made climate change – a reality which is now accepted by all governments, and virtually all scientists, except for a few eccentrics and those in the pay of fossil fuel industries.

Perhaps we will have to accept more nuclear power to keep the lights on and the carbon down, even though it needs massive subsidies, will saddle our descendants with radioactive waste for hundreds of years and creates the possibility of Fukushima-style disasters.

But even ignoring these problems, there is no way that nuclear power can come on stream quickly enough to decarbonise our energy supplies over the next few climate-crucial decades. Meanwhile UK wind power output has grown by 25 per cent over the past 18 months and has the potential to expand much faster, creating thousands of jobs. Sadly, this potential is at risk from government indecision, partly fuelled by opposition to onshore turbines.

Mr Roe describes turbines as monstrosities. I think that in the right location, turbines are objects of great beauty; and I think nuclear power stations are pretty ugly.

Mark Gladwin, Huntington Road, York.

 

• IN Monday’s Press an attack was made on wind farms by one of the nuclear brigade. Many points were indeed valid, but a couple of points were carefully ignored.

In the event of a wind farm being decommissioned, the land would immediately be available for alternative use. Decommission-ing a nuclear site is not the same, is it?

That process costs millions and leaves a large quantity of contaminated waste to dispose of. Even then, how long before the site could be used for anything else?

A wind farm doesn’t leave a legacy of radioactive waste that has the potential to kill and maim thousands. No one really knows how many centuries it will take for nuclear waste to burn itself out.

But that doesn’t bother the nuclear protagonists; after all, the problems of disposing lethal waste probably will not arise in their lifetime.

Wind farms are not as efficient, but they do not have the potential to wreak havoc for decades. I think the problems of radioactive waste facing future generations are far more important. But no doubt I’m in a minority.

G Brian Ledger, Horseman Close, Copmanthorpe, York.

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:59am Wed 5 Dec 12

The Great Buda says...

Jobs and hope isn't enough for some people. They'd rather we relied on imports of fuel from abroad.
Jobs and hope isn't enough for some people. They'd rather we relied on imports of fuel from abroad. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Wed 5 Dec 12

ak7274 says...

I believe that climate change is very real and predominantly Man made, but I really don't understand the wind farm mania. They are indeed inefficient and we need a heck of a lot more to even make a dent in fossil fuel usage. Why aren't we putting pressure on Government to put more resources into tidal energy Putting a wave turbine. a hundred feet under water in Islay sound, Sound of Jura etc would be vastly more efficient.
I believe that climate change is very real and predominantly Man made, but I really don't understand the wind farm mania. They are indeed inefficient and we need a heck of a lot more to even make a dent in fossil fuel usage. Why aren't we putting pressure on Government to put more resources into tidal energy Putting a wave turbine. a hundred feet under water in Islay sound, Sound of Jura etc would be vastly more efficient. ak7274
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Wed 5 Dec 12

ColdAsChristmas says...

Wrong again Buda. I'd like to see us getting on with Shale gas extraction, mining more of our own coal and perhaps growing some bio mas in all these set aside fields. I should also like to see us investing is hydro electricity but what do we get? Stupid inefficient and expensive wind turbines.
Mark talks a lot of tripe with his carbon Phobia, I assume he means man made CO2, which accounts for only around 16 parts per million in the atmosphere, not exactly catastrophic now is it. Meanwhile temperatures continue to go down, not accelerate.
As for all governments accepting junk science, the Polish and Czech Republic governments do not accept that man is causing global warming and those are just two within Europe.
I should be surprised if the UK ever got a Fukushima style nuclear disaster, for that you need a huge earthquake followed by a tsunami, most unlikely here. When Mark says most Scientists, he means just the alarmists, some brilliant scientists and most knowledgeable on the topic have been dismissed and ignored by the pal review system. The BBC's panel of so called experts turned out to be just a bunch of Eco warriors with a green agenda. Only three of them scientists and non in climate, meteorology or geology. No wonder the BBC is fighting to keep their names a secret, even though their names are available on the Internet. Mark talks about wind energy creating thousands of jobs, I would agree that is has in Germany and Denmark for example. But what about all the jobs lost in the UK when we lose 5 coal power stations next March. What about all the jobs lost such as those recently in steel manufacture because of higher than necessary energy costs. And what about the jobs that will be lost when the lights go out. There is no Global warming and hasn't been since 1997 so just get over it and take a reality check!
Wrong again Buda. I'd like to see us getting on with Shale gas extraction, mining more of our own coal and perhaps growing some bio mas in all these set aside fields. I should also like to see us investing is hydro electricity but what do we get? Stupid inefficient and expensive wind turbines. Mark talks a lot of tripe with his carbon Phobia, I assume he means man made CO2, which accounts for only around 16 parts per million in the atmosphere, not exactly catastrophic now is it. Meanwhile temperatures continue to go down, not accelerate. As for all governments accepting junk science, the Polish and Czech Republic governments do not accept that man is causing global warming and those are just two within Europe. I should be surprised if the UK ever got a Fukushima style nuclear disaster, for that you need a huge earthquake followed by a tsunami, most unlikely here. When Mark says most Scientists, he means just the alarmists, some brilliant scientists and most knowledgeable on the topic have been dismissed and ignored by the pal review system. The BBC's panel of so called experts turned out to be just a bunch of Eco warriors with a green agenda. Only three of them scientists and non in climate, meteorology or geology. No wonder the BBC is fighting to keep their names a secret, even though their names are available on the Internet. Mark talks about wind energy creating thousands of jobs, I would agree that is has in Germany and Denmark for example. But what about all the jobs lost in the UK when we lose 5 coal power stations next March. What about all the jobs lost such as those recently in steel manufacture because of higher than necessary energy costs. And what about the jobs that will be lost when the lights go out. There is no Global warming and hasn't been since 1997 so just get over it and take a reality check! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Mulgrave says...

The notion that wind turbines are a thing of great beauty may have had some credibility back in the 90's when they were a novelty. Out in the sticks in East Yorkshire they are becoming part of the scenery in every direction you look.

An E type Jaguar is a thing of beauty, traffic certainly isn't!
The notion that wind turbines are a thing of great beauty may have had some credibility back in the 90's when they were a novelty. Out in the sticks in East Yorkshire they are becoming part of the scenery in every direction you look. An E type Jaguar is a thing of beauty, traffic certainly isn't! Mulgrave
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Wed 5 Dec 12

capt spaulding says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Wrong again Buda. I'd like to see us getting on with Shale gas extraction, mining more of our own coal and perhaps growing some bio mas in all these set aside fields. I should also like to see us investing is hydro electricity but what do we get? Stupid inefficient and expensive wind turbines.
Mark talks a lot of tripe with his carbon Phobia, I assume he means man made CO2, which accounts for only around 16 parts per million in the atmosphere, not exactly catastrophic now is it. Meanwhile temperatures continue to go down, not accelerate.
As for all governments accepting junk science, the Polish and Czech Republic governments do not accept that man is causing global warming and those are just two within Europe.
I should be surprised if the UK ever got a Fukushima style nuclear disaster, for that you need a huge earthquake followed by a tsunami, most unlikely here. When Mark says most Scientists, he means just the alarmists, some brilliant scientists and most knowledgeable on the topic have been dismissed and ignored by the pal review system. The BBC's panel of so called experts turned out to be just a bunch of Eco warriors with a green agenda. Only three of them scientists and non in climate, meteorology or geology. No wonder the BBC is fighting to keep their names a secret, even though their names are available on the Internet. Mark talks about wind energy creating thousands of jobs, I would agree that is has in Germany and Denmark for example. But what about all the jobs lost in the UK when we lose 5 coal power stations next March. What about all the jobs lost such as those recently in steel manufacture because of higher than necessary energy costs. And what about the jobs that will be lost when the lights go out. There is no Global warming and hasn't been since 1997 so just get over it and take a reality check!
I really do think that your letter is one of the best i have read in a while.

You understand of course that if J A does not agree it could well be removed.

I will check the tweets to see how the land lies
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Wrong again Buda. I'd like to see us getting on with Shale gas extraction, mining more of our own coal and perhaps growing some bio mas in all these set aside fields. I should also like to see us investing is hydro electricity but what do we get? Stupid inefficient and expensive wind turbines. Mark talks a lot of tripe with his carbon Phobia, I assume he means man made CO2, which accounts for only around 16 parts per million in the atmosphere, not exactly catastrophic now is it. Meanwhile temperatures continue to go down, not accelerate. As for all governments accepting junk science, the Polish and Czech Republic governments do not accept that man is causing global warming and those are just two within Europe. I should be surprised if the UK ever got a Fukushima style nuclear disaster, for that you need a huge earthquake followed by a tsunami, most unlikely here. When Mark says most Scientists, he means just the alarmists, some brilliant scientists and most knowledgeable on the topic have been dismissed and ignored by the pal review system. The BBC's panel of so called experts turned out to be just a bunch of Eco warriors with a green agenda. Only three of them scientists and non in climate, meteorology or geology. No wonder the BBC is fighting to keep their names a secret, even though their names are available on the Internet. Mark talks about wind energy creating thousands of jobs, I would agree that is has in Germany and Denmark for example. But what about all the jobs lost in the UK when we lose 5 coal power stations next March. What about all the jobs lost such as those recently in steel manufacture because of higher than necessary energy costs. And what about the jobs that will be lost when the lights go out. There is no Global warming and hasn't been since 1997 so just get over it and take a reality check![/p][/quote]I really do think that your letter is one of the best i have read in a while. You understand of course that if J A does not agree it could well be removed. I will check the tweets to see how the land lies capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Wed 5 Dec 12

capt spaulding says...

ak7274 wrote:
I believe that climate change is very real and predominantly Man made, but I really don't understand the wind farm mania. They are indeed inefficient and we need a heck of a lot more to even make a dent in fossil fuel usage. Why aren't we putting pressure on Government to put more resources into tidal energy Putting a wave turbine. a hundred feet under water in Islay sound, Sound of Jura etc would be vastly more efficient.
The Bristol Channel is the highest tidal system in the UK. Whats stopping Hydro power........The greens and
R S P B
[quote][p][bold]ak7274[/bold] wrote: I believe that climate change is very real and predominantly Man made, but I really don't understand the wind farm mania. They are indeed inefficient and we need a heck of a lot more to even make a dent in fossil fuel usage. Why aren't we putting pressure on Government to put more resources into tidal energy Putting a wave turbine. a hundred feet under water in Islay sound, Sound of Jura etc would be vastly more efficient.[/p][/quote]The Bristol Channel is the highest tidal system in the UK. Whats stopping Hydro power........The greens and R S P B capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Omega Point says...

I agree with COld most of the time but:
"I should be surprised if the UK ever got a Fukushima style nuclear disaster, for that you need a huge earthquake followed by a tsunami, most unlikely here."

Heard of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
I agree with COld most of the time but: "I should be surprised if the UK ever got a Fukushima style nuclear disaster, for that you need a huge earthquake followed by a tsunami, most unlikely here." Heard of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl Omega Point
  • Score: 0

10:34pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Matt_S says...

"I assume he means man made CO2, which accounts for only around 16 parts per million in the atmosphere, not exactly catastrophic now is it."

Pre-industrial CO2 was around 280 parts per million. It's now around 390 ppm. If humans only caused 16 of that 110 increase, what accounts for the others?
"I assume he means man made CO2, which accounts for only around 16 parts per million in the atmosphere, not exactly catastrophic now is it." Pre-industrial CO2 was around 280 parts per million. It's now around 390 ppm. If humans only caused 16 of that 110 increase, what accounts for the others? Matt_S
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Wed 5 Dec 12

Matt_S says...

capt spaulding wrote:
ak7274 wrote:
I believe that climate change is very real and predominantly Man made, but I really don't understand the wind farm mania. They are indeed inefficient and we need a heck of a lot more to even make a dent in fossil fuel usage. Why aren't we putting pressure on Government to put more resources into tidal energy Putting a wave turbine. a hundred feet under water in Islay sound, Sound of Jura etc would be vastly more efficient.
The Bristol Channel is the highest tidal system in the UK. Whats stopping Hydro power........The greens and
R S P B
I have no objections to developing tidal power, but don't be under any illusions of how much energy it could generate. David MacKay, in Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air (free to download if you google it) estimates tidal energy could only generate about half of what onshore wind could generate.
[quote][p][bold]capt spaulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ak7274[/bold] wrote: I believe that climate change is very real and predominantly Man made, but I really don't understand the wind farm mania. They are indeed inefficient and we need a heck of a lot more to even make a dent in fossil fuel usage. Why aren't we putting pressure on Government to put more resources into tidal energy Putting a wave turbine. a hundred feet under water in Islay sound, Sound of Jura etc would be vastly more efficient.[/p][/quote]The Bristol Channel is the highest tidal system in the UK. Whats stopping Hydro power........The greens and R S P B[/p][/quote]I have no objections to developing tidal power, but don't be under any illusions of how much energy it could generate. David MacKay, in Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air (free to download if you google it) estimates tidal energy could only generate about half of what onshore wind could generate. Matt_S
  • Score: 0

11:48pm Wed 5 Dec 12

ColdAsChristmas says...

Omega Point, quite but this was specifically Fukushima style I was replying to, that you are not likely to see here. Of course some Islamic nut job might like to crash an aircraft into a nuclear reactor but that is the same the world over. We have learnt much about safety over the years.
More importantly Matt, we have been through this before. Man made CO2, including agriculture is accepted as being around 4% of the total. It is accepted that around 96% of atmospheric CO2 is simply a natural trace gas. Well you do the sums then if you don't believe me. Natural CO2 has never stood static anyway.
I know it is hard to come to terms with the fact that 16ppm is almost nothing.
At least it makes more sense as to why it is so cold on these clear (Windless) winter nights. Water vapour = 95% of all greenhouse gas where as the total CO2 is only 3.618% of the greenhouse effect.
In short, a fraction of 1% is man made.. Why not look up Professor Fred Singer, a closer look at the numbers. (Global Warming)
He tells it as it is, not how the green agenda would like to distort it!
Omega Point, quite but this was specifically Fukushima style I was replying to, that you are not likely to see here. Of course some Islamic nut job might like to crash an aircraft into a nuclear reactor but that is the same the world over. We have learnt much about safety over the years. More importantly Matt, we have been through this before. Man made CO2, including agriculture is accepted as being around 4% of the total. It is accepted that around 96% of atmospheric CO2 is simply a natural trace gas. Well you do the sums then if you don't believe me. Natural CO2 has never stood static anyway. I know it is hard to come to terms with the fact that 16ppm is almost nothing. At least it makes more sense as to why it is so cold on these clear (Windless) winter nights. Water vapour = 95% of all greenhouse gas where as the total CO2 is only 3.618% of the greenhouse effect. In short, a fraction of 1% is man made.. Why not look up Professor Fred Singer, a closer look at the numbers. (Global Warming) He tells it as it is, not how the green agenda would like to distort it! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 0

12:06am Thu 6 Dec 12

ColdAsChristmas says...

Further, COP 18 is going on in Doha and again since CO2penhagen in 2009 there is a news black out. No doubt at the last moment they will get a breakthrough to agree to more talks!!!!
However, we may be freezing here with energy bills through the roof but the Coalition have agreed to spend £2 Billion in the third world on wind turbines to turn them green. Nick Clegg says this is great news. So much for him!
What will it take for you to understand Matt? Perhaps a glacier encroaching upon the UK into a city?
Further, COP 18 is going on in Doha and again since CO2penhagen in 2009 there is a news black out. No doubt at the last moment they will get a breakthrough to agree to more talks!!!! However, we may be freezing here with energy bills through the roof but the Coalition have agreed to spend £2 Billion in the third world on wind turbines to turn them green. Nick Clegg says this is great news. So much for him! What will it take for you to understand Matt? Perhaps a glacier encroaching upon the UK into a city? ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 0

6:22am Thu 6 Dec 12

ak7274 says...

While agreeing somewhat with the views of someone I won't bother googling Tidal power is constant, wind power is not and most wind power "experts" tend to use figures that are at optimal wind speeds. No one as yet has actually told us how much as a percentage of power the country uses a year wind turbines generate.
While agreeing somewhat with the views of someone I won't bother googling Tidal power is constant, wind power is not and most wind power "experts" tend to use figures that are at optimal wind speeds. No one as yet has actually told us how much as a percentage of power the country uses a year wind turbines generate. ak7274
  • Score: 0

10:03am Thu 6 Dec 12

capt spaulding says...

Apart from the 2hours at slack tide generation would be constant with the incoming and outgoing tide and it happens every day without fail.
Apart from the 2hours at slack tide generation would be constant with the incoming and outgoing tide and it happens every day without fail. capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

10:55am Thu 6 Dec 12

The Great Buda says...

Shale extraction and mining our own coal? Jesus wept.

a) people will fight shale harder than turbines. Shale actually damaged peoples houses.

b) if it was profitable to mine our own coal, we would be. Might not be a good idea to remove all of the coal either, for the same reason as above (re: damaging houses)

1/10 see me after class.
Shale extraction and mining our own coal? Jesus wept. a) people will fight shale harder than turbines. Shale actually damaged peoples houses. b) if it was profitable to mine our own coal, we would be. Might not be a good idea to remove all of the coal either, for the same reason as above (re: damaging houses) 1/10 see me after class. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

10:11pm Thu 6 Dec 12

ColdAsChristmas says...

Jesus has nothing to do with this Buda, though you may wish to pray to him later and beg forgiveness for your false religion.
Shale gas has been a tremendous success in the USA and given them access to very cheap energy. We need to compete if we are to rid ourselves of the deficit.
As a carbon phobic, I can see your problem with coal. But as there is no global warming and we have plenty of coal then sustainability and energy security means that coal will be good for the UK.
There were early issues regards to contamination in the fracking industry but the science of this has moved on. More you can say for the global warming lobby!
Jesus has nothing to do with this Buda, though you may wish to pray to him later and beg forgiveness for your false religion. Shale gas has been a tremendous success in the USA and given them access to very cheap energy. We need to compete if we are to rid ourselves of the deficit. As a carbon phobic, I can see your problem with coal. But as there is no global warming and we have plenty of coal then sustainability and energy security means that coal will be good for the UK. There were early issues regards to contamination in the fracking industry but the science of this has moved on. More you can say for the global warming lobby! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 0

11:50pm Thu 6 Dec 12

Matt_S says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Omega Point, quite but this was specifically Fukushima style I was replying to, that you are not likely to see here. Of course some Islamic nut job might like to crash an aircraft into a nuclear reactor but that is the same the world over. We have learnt much about safety over the years.
More importantly Matt, we have been through this before. Man made CO2, including agriculture is accepted as being around 4% of the total. It is accepted that around 96% of atmospheric CO2 is simply a natural trace gas. Well you do the sums then if you don't believe me. Natural CO2 has never stood static anyway.
I know it is hard to come to terms with the fact that 16ppm is almost nothing.
At least it makes more sense as to why it is so cold on these clear (Windless) winter nights. Water vapour = 95% of all greenhouse gas where as the total CO2 is only 3.618% of the greenhouse effect.
In short, a fraction of 1% is man made.. Why not look up Professor Fred Singer, a closer look at the numbers. (Global Warming)
He tells it as it is, not how the green agenda would like to distort it!
"Man made CO2, including agriculture is accepted as being around 4% of the total. It is accepted that around 96% of atmospheric CO2 is simply a natural trace gas."

I found your 'A closer look at the numbers' article you reference:
http://www.geocraft.
com/WVFossils/greenh
ouse_data.html

The table on this webpage is presumably where you got your figure from. The webpage claims that *it* got the table from the US Department of Energy. But it didn't. There is no 'natural additions' or 'man-made additions' in the original data, as this webpage explains:
http://skepticdebunk
.blogspot.co.uk/2007
/10/global-warming-c
loser-look-at-number
s.html

Furthermore, if you are going to rely on (apparent) US Department of Energy numbers, then you should look at this FAQ, which states that "it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.":
http://cdiac.ornl.go
v/faq.html#Q7

If you're claiming that the increase in CO2 from 288ppm to in 1850 to ~390ppm today is *not* caused by humans, then what *is* causing the increase?
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Omega Point, quite but this was specifically Fukushima style I was replying to, that you are not likely to see here. Of course some Islamic nut job might like to crash an aircraft into a nuclear reactor but that is the same the world over. We have learnt much about safety over the years. More importantly Matt, we have been through this before. Man made CO2, including agriculture is accepted as being around 4% of the total. It is accepted that around 96% of atmospheric CO2 is simply a natural trace gas. Well you do the sums then if you don't believe me. Natural CO2 has never stood static anyway. I know it is hard to come to terms with the fact that 16ppm is almost nothing. At least it makes more sense as to why it is so cold on these clear (Windless) winter nights. Water vapour = 95% of all greenhouse gas where as the total CO2 is only 3.618% of the greenhouse effect. In short, a fraction of 1% is man made.. Why not look up Professor Fred Singer, a closer look at the numbers. (Global Warming) He tells it as it is, not how the green agenda would like to distort it![/p][/quote]"Man made CO2, including agriculture is accepted as being around 4% of the total. It is accepted that around 96% of atmospheric CO2 is simply a natural trace gas." I found your 'A closer look at the numbers' article you reference: http://www.geocraft. com/WVFossils/greenh ouse_data.html The table on this webpage is presumably where you got your figure from. The webpage claims that *it* got the table from the US Department of Energy. But it didn't. There is no 'natural additions' or 'man-made additions' in the original data, as this webpage explains: http://skepticdebunk .blogspot.co.uk/2007 /10/global-warming-c loser-look-at-number s.html Furthermore, if you are going to rely on (apparent) US Department of Energy numbers, then you should look at this FAQ, which states that "it may be safely assumed that they [CO2 concentrations] would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.": http://cdiac.ornl.go v/faq.html#Q7 If you're claiming that the increase in CO2 from 288ppm to in 1850 to ~390ppm today is *not* caused by humans, then what *is* causing the increase? Matt_S
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree