From: Dr Ken Stubbs, Environmental Management.
How you can call your article Saturday Essay when it was yet another totally biased advertising feature on behalf of the wind turbine industry is beyond me.
There never seems to be an in-depth article by an unbiased source that gives the facts, for and against the turbines. It is obviously not PC to deviate from government guidelines and when it involves lots of money then anybody in dissent is frowned upon.
This is the way of the UK at the moment. If it goes against policy, ignore it.
A factual study of the wind turbine industry would make interesting reading but I can’t see it happening. The solar power movement was dealt a death blow without good reason.
In his essay (Yorkshire Post, May 12), Mr Dyke presents all the pro features (in his view) of wind turbines and all the negatives of alternative systems.
I am not abreast of the very latest information but some points that were not raised are listed below:
The amount of CO2 generated in the production and installation of each turbine takes as long as five years production of power to balance the CO2 equation.
The noise of the turbines does disturb local residents and in the case of offshore wind farms, there are concerns that the whales and dolphins are being confused by the noises.
It may be that the noise generated could adversely affect the guidance systems of bats.
I’m not sure if there has been any work done on that aspect.
There is conflicting evidence about bird kill, with proponents insisting that it doesn’t happen while other organisations are providing figures showing that it does.
The environmental impact of these turbines is great. Many people find them disturbing and when one considers that the majority of turbines are placed in the very areas visited by people to unwind from the stresses of modern life then the turbines can be said to be environmentally damaging.
In America it has been found that the areas behind the turbines are developing into mini ecosystems with detrimental effects. When approaching wind farms from certain directions the blades can create a strobe effect with any sunlight that may be around. This in turn will confuse migrant birds.
I understand that the RAF has expressed concerns about the positioning of some wind farms as they will interfere with radar networks.
The “host of other benefits” are nothing but bribes that wouldn’t be needed if the locals were in favour of the installations as inferred by the poll of 1,000 people. And to use a poll of 1,000 people out of a population of more than 50 million in England as evidence is totally ludicrous. It is bad science to use such a small selection when the effect is felt by so many.
Alternative forms of power generation may not be as efficient, at the moment, but with enough resources thrown at them the scene would change. Just because the Government agreed to meet certain deadlines regarding the use of renewable energy, they are being panicked into choosing a system with many negatives.
There is a lot of money to be made in wind turbines and that to me seems to be the overriding concern of politicians. They are being advised by articulate but inexperienced people who seem to respond to every crisis with a sudden solution, eg Education, the NHS and Defence.
We need to have some more time to develop alternative forms of energy production and these eyesores should not be forced on us.