LETTER: It’s a question of wind efficiency

Re Mr Tereszczak’s letter regarding our view that wind farms are not the answer, he asks if I know what “efficiency” means.

As I have qualifications in mechanical and electrical/electronic engineering, yes I do. Has he any qualifications? As for cost efficiency, I ran my own businesses, so yes that, too, is well known to me.

He goes on to quote the DECC Electricity Generating Costs, 2013 as showing “reliable Government data” so I looked it up.

It was very difficult to understand easily as it was written in “Civil Service Speak”. (Do they go to special training to learn that?) However, it appears that this is a report where costs have been “levelised”!!

No, I have never heard of it either but it seems to be similar to the way the Dept. of Education treats children so that they are “levelised” to the same level in case 
the cleverer ones make the others somehow feel disadvantaged.

However, as I went into the report, on page 13 there are three headings, a main one and two subheadings.

The main heading is “Levelised Costs limitations”, followed by the sub heading “Levelised costs are uncertain” which is followed by “leverised costs are not Strike Prices”!!!

That doesn’t give me much confidence about the “reliable” Government figures.

On Page 18 is a bar chart which indicates that the construction costs of wind farms is about 25% higher than that for a nuclear power station. So those simple windmills cost more than atomic power stations to build. That is a surprise.

Not only that but the operating costs are by far the highest of all the alternatives, except large scale solar farms, and we should remember that these have been “levelised” so that no one form appears to have any major advantage over the others.

Mr. T then goes on to say that green energy has to be subsidised because it is more expensive in cash terms. It then appears that green energy is required because of what Mr. T says is the planet being poorly.

He obviously believes all the twaddle spouted about “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever they now call it as they find their “science” is all wrong.

For Mr. T’s information, the earth has not warmed up for the last 15 years or so, the ice cap in the arctic is increasing and scientists who are specialists in the environment say there is no likelihood of any significant temperature rise in the next 50 years at least.

Don’t take my word for this Mr. T., read what Prof. Robert Carter in Australia, a scientist with 30 years experience and is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist. He was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University from 1981 to 1998. He has written a report on the 10 myths of Global Warming and 10 facts about it.

I would believe what he says more than someone who is a transport engineer but heads the IPCC.

Over 30,000 scientists have signed a letter arguing against global warning but big business and politicians cannot admit to making any mistakes.

Just as a thought, the River Thames fairly regularly iced over and even had fairs running on it in the 17th. and 18th. century.

How often has it iced over since the 19th. century? That cannot be due to increased man made CO2 emissions so the theory is dubious to say the least.

However, to keep to the original point concerning the need for another wind farm at Asserby, when I look at the turbines on the enormous Skegenss farm and the smaller one at Trusthorpe I notice that very often there are a number that are not turning, probably because they are not needed since the wind was sufficient to turn the others.

There is very often one turbine not working at Trusthorpe and the other day there were 6 out of 16.

That being the case, why do we need more turbines at Asserby?

Geoffrey Lover

Sutton on Sea