Eurozone should be broken up

From: Bob Crowther, High Street, Crigglestone, Wakefield.

Once again we are informed that the figures for our recovery and growth are to be revised, another downward spiral may I add.

These so called financial whizzkids, or people who do not hold down a “proper” job are literally throwing nondescript figures around like confetti.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

These people, who along with our government leaders, witnessed and allowed our nation to slide into the abyss are, in my opinion, gambling with our meagre resources. It is akin to having a weekly bet on the horses. No guarantees, but hey presto, you never know when your horse may come in. That people in high places have now completely lost the plot is evident by the fact that not one constructive and worthwhile idea has been promoted during the crisis.

Much wringing of hands and glorious meetings in European capital cities but not much progress. Countries such as the US, Canada and China will be the first to emerge from the slump solely due to the fact that they are not tied to such schemes as “diversity, carbon footprints and energy-saving schemes” and are not governed from behind the scenes by foreign governments.

I have always believed that the introduction of the euro was a political move, not a financial move as our “experts” would have us believe. I think that this has proven to be true, taking into account our present problems.

From: Nick Martinek, Briarlyn Road, Huddersfield.

It is indeed staggering that “every EU “summit” since David Cameron took office – 18 in all – has been about the euro crisis” (Yorkshire Post, May 23). Unfortunately, perpetual bail-outs, whilst costing the hapless taxpayer untold billions of pounds, are not the answer.

What is really needed is the eurozone to be broken up, and each country to revert to its own floating currency. That way each country may set its own financial policies appropriate to its own economy, instead of being restricted by a “one-size-fits-all” Brussels regime that actually suits no-one.

Moreover, we would then not have to suffer the cheek of the EU elites demanding that the UK bail out their rotten euro with a new financial transaction tax primarily collected off UK taxpayers.

Why should we pay for their currency? Perhaps the UK should demand a car transaction tax instead. At least then the Euro culprits would be largely paying for their own Euro blunders.

From: Hilary Andrews, Nursery Lane, Leeds.

I can fully understand Greece not wanting to be told by Germany what they must do with their economy.

Thank goodness we are not in the eurozone. Imagine being told what to do by a nation that we have beaten in two world wars!

Wind power too variable

From: Ian W Murdoch, Spring Hill, Welbury, Northallerton.

I note the further response to your Saturday Essay (Yorkshire Post, May 12) by Phil Dyke, development director for Banks Renewables, from Dr Ken Stubbs of Environmental Management.

I agree with him that a factual study of the wind turbine industry is necessary but unlikely in view of the massive vested interests supporting what is clearly an industry failing to meet its declared aim – reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

While also agreeing with Dr Stubbs’s list of the negative aspects of wind turbines which Mr Dykes did not mention, I must add two further points which are key to understanding why wind does not offer a meaningful solution to reducing carbon emissions.

First, is the natural variability of wind which means metered output can fall from 3000MW to 500MW within 24 hours, requiring conventional capacity to be ramped up to fill the energy gap.

Remember this is a very significant gap – equivalent to the normal output of the Drax complex.

For the last three days, total output both onshore and offshore, has not exceeded five per cent of metered capacity, and for 12 hours today has been below 50MW, or one per cent metered capacity.

This clearly demonstrates that for all wind capacity there will always require to be equivalent conventional capacity, usually gas turbines, always ready to ramp up and down as the wind rises and falls.

The second point is that in ramping up and down, this back- up capacity will be required to run inefficiently and burn more fuel per unit of electricity than if allowed to run in the steady state in which it is most carbon- efficient.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change has consistently failed to recognise that the unavoidable short term variability of wind, both on and off shore, is a key issue which must be addressed.

Question of competence

From: Brian Sheridan, Redmires Road, Sheffield.

Well said, Brian Davidson; welcome to the growing number of readers who have rumbled self-publicist GP Taylor (“A good writer, but certainly no economist”, Yorkshire Post, May 23).

I like the way Brian studiously avoids the pretentious initials, referring to him simply as Mr Taylor. Who does he think he is, Priestley or his late historian namesake?

For all I know GP Taylor may have been a good police officer or may be a good writer – of fairy stories, I believe – but good journalist he certainly is not. It is not about opinion: well perhaps it is... a bit. I don’t care for Taylor’s line in jingoism.

It is a question of competence. A wise old journalist once told me that assumptions are useless. You have to get your facts right and be able to marshal evidence to support your claims.

Like Brian Davidson, I am disappointed that your great newspaper, with its array of excellent columnists, prints “such unsubstantiated notions”.

Journalism is best left to the professionals.