Sir,
I was dismayed to read the article on the deliberations of the Pembrokeshire South East Energy Group. No dissent now seems possible over the drive to cover the most beautiful areas of the country with wind turbines.
Naturally the wind energy companies are all in favour of them as they are subsidised by us all to build them and stand to make large profits. I note that the planning process is described as complex and necessitates having to find locations which will not interfere with radar, telecommunications or pipelines - no mention of local residents.
Obviously, some land owners will be very keen to have them on their land as the annual rent paid is considerable and provides an effortless income.
Manmade global warming now seems to have taken on the mantle of a religion. If you do not subscribe to it, you risk being pilloried. But many eminent scientists do not agree with the computer predictions of the likely effects.
Leaving this aside, if carbon dioxide emissions are to be reduced, building hundreds of wind turbines is not the answer. It is difficult to cover all the arguments against these machines in a letter, but the main points to be made are as follows:
They do not generate the electricity claimed by the energy companies, which is uually expressed in terms of the number of houses supplied. Existing on-shore wind turbines produce only 25 to 33 per cent of their rated output. They do not produce electricity to match the fluctuating demand, but only when the wind is blowing at Force 7, 8 or 9 on the Beaufort scale. The output drops off steeply with wind speed and, of course, on still days, which are cold in winter, they produce no electricity at all. The shortfall must be made up by conventional power sources, which must be kept available at all times to compensate for fluctuating winds, so the savings in carbon dioxide emissions are probably illusory.
Each wind turbine requires a massive concrete foundation. The energy needed to build these turbines will take six years to pay back, before the turbine can make a positive contribution. This is a significant proportion of its projected lifetime. It is unlikely that the Olympic swimming pool sized foundation will be removed when the turbine is eventually dismantled.
The existing (unsightly) grid infrastructure is suited to large power stations. Clusters of wind turbines will not only spoil some of our most beautiful views. but new pylons will also be required to distribute the power.
The presence of massive turbines several hundred feet high has blighted the lives of people living near them, due to the visual impact and low frequency vibrations. It has also significantly reduced the value of their properties. An important factor for this region is the likely adverse effect on tourism of despoiling beautiful views.
The only way forward is to reduce our energy consumption, replace and expand our nuclear generating capacity and develop tidal power (which is at least predictable).
There are other problems with wind power, but some of these are technical and there isn't space to cover them all. I believe the public are being badly misinformed about wind turbines.
R Duffield Bsc CEng MIChemE,