More research needs to be done
I WOULD like to share with your readers a copy of my "open" letter to The Secretary of State for Energy.
I wonder, perhaps, if you understand the very deep distress that these developments cause to the vast majority of your readers? It is my biggest post bag. Yet there seems to have been no serious attempt to debate the issue.
-
This politician feels that the Government is not taking the issue of wind farms seriously enough.
Did you know we are committed by the EU to 35,000 of these monsters?
The biggest desecrator of the landscape since the industrial revolution. Could I persuade your readers to look at this letter and send their thoughts to you.
Godfrey Bloom, UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire
Dear Mr Miliband
It would appear that, as usual, this Government has not thought through the dire consequences of its actions. This time on wind turbines.
Industrial wind turbines have minimal impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation – with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19 per cent of its electricity – has yet to close a single fossil fuel plant. It requires 50 per cent more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36 per cent in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company Elsam (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions".
The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gramme", and additional coal and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character.
These turbines are not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options.
Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15 cents/kWh). Niels Gram, of the Danish Federation of Industries, said: "Windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense."
Aase Madsen, the chairman of energy policy in the Danish Parliament calls it "a terribly expensive disaster". The US Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the US government subsidises wind at $23.34 – compared to reliable energy sources: Natural gas at 25 cents; coal at 44 cents; hydro at 67 cents; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some US commentators call "a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy".
The Economist magazine, in a recent editorial Wasting Money On Climate Change, notes that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137.
A growing body of scientific and medical evidence suggests that the health effects on those subjected to long and frequent periods of pulsating, low-frequency noise associated with wind turbines include sleep disturbances leading to depression, chronic stress, migraines, nausea and dizziness, exhaustion and anger, memory loss and cognitive difficulties, cardiac arrhythmias, increased heart rate and blood pressure.
Kamperman and James list no fewer than 13 studies that show noise from wind turbines at night can disturb residents more than two kilometres away. Those living close to the source of noise can develop what has been termed 'Vibroacoustic Disease' (VAD).
Noise from wind turbines exhibits the characteristics of noise experienced in various occupations (aircrews, aircraft maintenance workers, shipworkers and an island population exposed to environmental infra and low frequency noise) and has been shown to lead to VAD.
Complaints from people living near wind turbines are the same as those from persons who have developed VAD.
Also, flicker from turbines at a minimum are disruptive and annoying. Flicker poses a potential risk of photosensitive seizures. The refusal of the Government to order full independent environmental assessments, including assessments of health effects, of any wind turbine project, undermines the credibility of claims that there will be no such negative effects.
While wind developers deny that industrial wind turbines have any effect on property values of neighbouring residents, simple common sense suggests otherwise: How many readers familiar with this development would be prepared to buy recreational or retirement homes in this area, even at sharply discounted prices? In a recreational area that promotes its scenic attractions, like The Yorkshire Dales or the West Country, these effects on property values are likely to be even more pronounced.
Refusal by either wind developers or the Government to provide legally enforceable guarantees of compensation for property value losses warrants further scepticism over the claim that there will be no such losses.
Even if one thinks that wind turbines are a good idea environmentally and economically, there is a simple solution to the impact on rural residents, who are being conscripted to bear most of the burden of solving a problem they mostly did not create. Ensure that set-backs from residences conform to international standards as endorsed by renowned medical and scientific bodies that have closely examined the health and environmental risks.
The French Academy of Medicine recommends 1.5 km, pending further research on health effects of persistent exposure to low-intensity noise. Alternatively, the Government could concentrate wind farms in more remote or sparsely populated areas, as in much of Europe. These measures would also minimise negative impacts on property values. But these are modest palliatives to the fundamental policy flaws and do not address industrial wind power's failure to reduce significantly carbon emissions and its exorbitant cost to taxpayers and consumers.
I urge you to put an immediate moratorium on wind farms until a serious independent survey is undertaken.
8 Comments
by Pensioner, Immingham
Wednesday, April 29 2009, 4:44PM
“Neil, I humbly and unreservedly apologise. Those innocent children deserve much, much more than my crass comments.......I am sorry.”
by Neil Jones, Cleethorpes
Wednesday, April 29 2009, 9:31AM
“"Nuclear energy deaths",Pensioner?In the last ten years?Ask the people of Ukraine,where Chernobyl was.Have they all died now? I was part of a group who paid for some children from that area to see York.Those experiencies have never left me.As I have tried to explain.You can replace "windmills",knock them down,whatever....Thirty years."Nuclear waste"?One thousand years plus....Our very small,little plus on our short time on this earth.They will have to "deal" with the consequences.Not ourselves....I can deal with broken "windmills".Have you an answer in dealing with nuclear waste for over one thousand years?”
by Pensioner, Immingham
Tuesday, April 28 2009, 5:18PM
“Neil, talk about serendipity! I stumbled into these data by accident............
How many nuclear energy deaths have there been this year ? Zero.
How about coal mining deaths in the last year ? 5000 to 10,000 worldwide.
How about nuclear energy deaths in the last ten years ? Zero.
How about coal mining deaths in the last ten year ? about 80,000 worldwide.
Many of those who die in coal mines do not die painlessly or instantly.
Many were likely trapped and suffered for days in failed efforts but were too deep to free themselves or for help to reach them in time.
Plus there are the air pollution deaths of about 1 million each year.
Many of those suffered from painful diseases before succumbing.
A lot of deaths and injuries for coal power versus almost none for nuclear power. IT also translates into a lot of human suffering.”
by Chris, Lincolnshire
Tuesday, April 28 2009, 7:48AM
“hi 'Pensioner'
Thank you for that link, I've been recording local wind speeds for months (for my own information) ....The link, you have given, has more information, than I'm used to.
....I'm surprised that anyone would defend Wind Turbines, on the strength that the sails fly off, from time to time, Neil? Particularly as they are building over size Turbines within a few hundred meters of houses, (at the moment) and closer still, to roads and pathways.”
by Pensioner, Immingham
Monday, April 27 2009, 6:35PM
“Neil, I think I suggested this to you before......it does show in real time and elapsed time the wind profile for the UK and Coningsby.......Scampton......Donna Nook, in relation to Conisholme. Check it every so often, especially when you think it is windy or calm.......then think of the cube law. Dale won't like us using it!
http://www.xcweather.co.uk/”
by Pensioner, Immingham
Monday, April 27 2009, 3:45PM
“Neil I agree with your sentiments.......please don't judge modern nuclear fission plants on very old reactor piles like Chernobyl. Modern reactors are much smaller with less core irradiated masses to dispose of. Yes the waste is radioactive for a very long time, but so is granite and granite based concrete (producing radon gas)! We live with it!
Instead of very modern nuclear stations that do not emit CO2 or any other environmental pollutant we are now amazingly having to endure new build coal fired stations......why........because the wind doesn't blow when we want it to! Every windmill has to have equivalent back up to maintain our lifestyle.
Coal extraction has killed more miners in history than both WW2 atomic bombs and Chernobyl; and coal continues to kill when mined, transported and burned.
It's just sad that our failing government in it's dying moments has forced this county into an energy crisis involving coal, gas, nuclear fission, potential energy, and wind turbines/biomass electrical generators.
The fun will really begin when millions try to plug in electric cars overnight !!!!!
Remember the cube law: roughly goes like this,
If a wind turbine has an output of sat one megawatt at a wind speed of say 25MPH, then if the wind reduces to 12MPH the generator's output will fall to one eighth, one hundred and twenty five kilowatts. 1MW down to 125kW. It is not very often the wind blows at 25MPH and so far this year we have had many, many windless days! You can't run an on demand electrical grid with fickle wind power!”
by Neil, Cleethorpes
Monday, April 27 2009, 12:44PM
“Pensioner.I appreciate I am NOT an engineer,scientist or anything like that.The point is.....At Conisholme recently,a windmill broke.Anyone hurt?No.Any damage done?No.Nuclear power.What happened at Chernobyl?How many times have the Irish complained about Sellafield? What would you suggest our future generations "do" with nuclear waste? Bung it in the ground and wait for an earthquake to "resurrect" it? "Windmills".Lifetime around thirty years."Nuclear waste".One thousand years?More?Time to use less energy I think.....”
by Pensioner, Immingham
Monday, April 27 2009, 11:50AM
“Getting near to the truth here!
A modern society just cannot rely on intermittent generators. They do cause continuing pollution and require un-economic spinning reserve generators (fossil, fission or potential energy plant) on instant back up duty.
Not one single commercial wind turbine has or ever will be built. They cannot make money.
There are only two money making organisations in wind turbines........one the manufacturer and second the shareholders reaping hand over fist ROCs. The government throws public funding at the stupid system in the order of billions of pounds. This is similar to the banking crisis........only the upper echelons of utility management and directors will get their hands on the money. They know just like the bankers, that the few will benefit by fleecing the many.
If only this pathetic government had cared about the environment nearly 13 years ago, today we would be securely supplied by new build nuclear power plants.......which do not emit any harmful waste.
Gordon (I'll save the world) as a chancellor and un-elected prime minister has placed this country into formidable difficulty by not replacing ageing generators. He allowed the dash for gas and so drastically shortened the North sea gas reserve. He has systematically allowed the UK nuclear engineering base and expertise go abroad.....we cannot even build a plant ourselves.....we used to lead the world!
The Danish experience has been an energy disaster in terms of the astronomic cost of electricity and the embarrassing need to build new fossil fuelled (coal) generators to back up the intermittent wind mills!
Any student of engineering or physics is familiar with the wind cube law..........it speaks volumes that Milliban and his government probably do know about it but try the hide the full cost of ROCs and other subsidies as well as keeping the cube law under wraps. Just this one simple rule of the cube law means that wind turbines can never be effective.”