Monday's Letters: New nuclear power plan demolishes case for windfarms

THE Government has recently decided to provide eight new nuclear power stations, the first to be up and running in eight years' time.

In addition, a new 3.6 GW nuclear power station is already in the pipeline at Sellafield.

These, along with our existing gas, oil and coal power stations with carbon capture, are essential to provide for our base load power requirements with low carbon deposits, which are necessary for our own supply security. The nuclear power stations will provide far more clean energy than all our windfarms could ever supply, so why do we need windfarms? To which the short answer is – we don't. To remind ourselves what our carbon deposits from power generation are, in a world situation these amount to about 0.66 per cent so even if we could eliminate all of these, which we cannot, it would make only a small difference but this does not mean we should do nothing; it should be done in the most economical way possible.

To illustrate this and compare windfarms on a like-for-like basis with just one of our nuclear power stations of 3.6 GW on 3,600 MW capacity, the wind farms would need to have an installed capacity of three times that of the nuclear power station to attain the same energy output in MW hours of the nuclear power station. This is because windfarms are only able to produce their maximum power on an average of about eight hours per day. Their installed capacity would then amount

to 10,800 MW of offshore windfarms, and at 3m/MW this would cost about 32bn.

The number of turbines required at 3MW each would be 3,600. So, in eight years' time when the first of our new nuclear power stations is completed, along with the new Sellafield nuclear power station, we would have the equivalent clean energy from the two nuclear power stations of 7,200 windfarms. On completion of the additional seven nuclear power stations we would have the equivalent energy output of about 32,000 windfarms which is more than three times the projected total of 10,000 planned.

What is more important is that, due to windfarms being an intermittent form of power generation, they cannot substitute for conventional generators, and therefore all their vast costs would be in addition to what we must spend anyway on our conventional generators.

In the situation I have described, windfarms become redundant, so surely the best thing to do now is to cut our losses and cancel any further additions with savings to be made of billions of pounds? Wind energy is inefficient and a very expensive form of power generation and the energy is far more costly than that produced by any other form of power generation, and that is the reason windfarms need to be subsidised to make them viable, with this burden falling on the British taxpayer, with a substantial increase on their fuel bills which will continue for many years ahead. This will not occur for nuclear power stations.

In June, the Government invited suggestions from the public on ways to make cuts and my number one priority was to cut the windfarm programme, and I am now more convinced than ever that this would be the right decision to take.

Not a whisker of a reason to hate cats

From: FN Ibbotson, Hawthorn Way, Ashgate Park, Chesterfield, Derbyshire.

I HAVE to respond to Peter Leigh's tirade against cats (Yorkshire Post,

October 12) – he is obviously a cat-hater. Yes, of course, like all humans and animals, cats eat, drink and defecate, the difference being that a cat (given the chance) will tend to bury its own excrement, not so we humans or dogs.

I write "given the chance" because the cat doesn't linger too long in case somewhere in the vicinity there is a Mr Leigh armed with shotgun or catapult enjoying the hunt.

The sad thing about Mr Leigh's letter is that being a "cat-hater" he is missing so much pleasure in life. My wife, who sadly died in August, spent the last four years of her life in an advanced state of Alzheimers and I can assure Mr Leigh that a cat that I adopted,

even though I was 88 at the time and my wife was 84, proved to be wonderful therapy for both of us.

The cat was a cruelty case, but settled with us and I didn't even need a litter tray – she was a remarkably clean animal. We didn't have a problem at all with her ablutions and the birds were, and are, constant visitors to our garden.

Where do we stop Mr Leigh? Do we condemn birds for eating worms, slugs etc – after all, they do aerate our lawns.

From: Ken Holmes, Cliffe Common, Selby.

I ADMIT to being a bit old-fashioned and having not allowed myself to be dragged into the 21st century.

I am a firm believer in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. On that basis my thoughts are that the woman who dropped a poor cat in a wheelie bin and only received a paltry fine, should, to teach her a salutary lesson, be dropped in a wheelie bin herself and see how she finds the experience.

A vicious circle

From: Janet Rowntree, Escrick, York.

THE article claiming on-screen violence "can lead to aggression" (Yorkshire Post, October 19) struck me as being long overdue. Though I am not a scientist and have had little science teaching, purely from observation I have always noticed how much we are all influenced by what we see and hear. Violence begets violence. Human nature is highly emulative and, without the constraints of moral boundaries being chosen as necessities for and by each of us individually and collectively, to live by violence will, inevitably, lead to the law of the jungle prevailing.

Moreover, violence has so very many disastrous side effects, some of which violent people try to conceal, thereby harming themselves and others. The whole of our society is blameworthy for allowing the explicit showing of extreme violence and pornography in all forms of media.

Each of us needs to respond to the higher calling of the spirit: "That still, small voice" within us, so that we practise and teach higher

moral values.

Of course, we all fall short of perfection but that does not mean that we should lose it as a goal; that higher calling is something to

which we all need to aspire relentlessly, no matter what the personal and communal or corporate cost.

My thanks to the scientists who have published their findings in the Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience journal. And my sincere thanks to the Yorkshire Post for highlighting such an important, indeed crucial, matter.

Betrayal of the mail

From: Douglas Hartley, Irving Terrace, Clayton, Bradford, West Yorkshire.

PRIVATISATION offers "the only hope of saving Britain's postal service" (Yorkshire Post, October 14). As happened

with the utilities, the "privateers" will demand high returns for their investments. Prices will rise, and the loss-making universal service will be ended, removing what you describe as "a lifeline for remote regions of rural Britain".

Again, as with some of the utilities, our postal service may come under foreign control. With German DHL already at its throat, and Dutch TNT planning to increase its market share in Britain (Yorkshire Post, October 5), Royal Mail, described in a recent letter by D Wood as "once the envy of the world," will die, betrayed by British governments of whatever party.

Dating back to 1710, the United Kingdom and colonies postal service grew in strength and in use.

I am reading a novel by Anthony Trollope – a story from the mid 19th century. On the morning of Christmas Eve, a letter is posted. "In accordance with postal regulations, it reaches Vavasor Hall and was delivered to Alice on Christmas morning." Incredible service! Trollope, a high official of the Post Office, knew what he was talking about.

With European competition expelled from Britain in a defiance of the EU, let Royal Mail remain a public service, set on its feet by government financial assistance, encouraged to modernise its technology, and so return to one-time profit-making.

Familiar tale of cuts

From: G Ellison, Hawthorn Avenue, Dronfield, Sheffield.

WAS it New Labour who re-introduced benefits to 16-17-year-olds? The

previous Tory Government stopped the big increase in OAPs' pensions including bus pass, heating allowance and TV licence.

There was a huge increase in family allowance and a huge increase in GPs' salaries. There were the two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported by the Tories, which helped to cause this financial mess (whatever it is).

If so, pull our troops out and all those who didn't rely on the benefits stated should pay them back, as they gladly filled in forms to receive these state benefits.

The previous Tory Government was cut after cut, millions and millions of job losses.

Who was to blame for that for 18 years and for the massive debt they left?

Heroes face homelessness

From: Mrs PA Ledwith, Wrench Green, Hackness, Scarborough.

I WOULD like to bring to our MPs' notice the plight of the brave heroes in our Armed Forces.

What will happen to those made redundant who live in married quarters?

Housing in the country is at a premium due to lack of

building new homes. This problem will affect not only the men, but their wives and children.

Haven't they given enough? I hope the Government will not overlook them. I am not blind or deaf to our country's situation but to make redundant, and homeless, the people who have kept us safe would be monstrous.

At this time of the year and every other day, remember them and their families.

Another false dawn for peace in the Middle East

From: D Birch, Smithy Lane, Cookridge, Leeds.

IT was only a few months ago that talks were being held again in the US and it was beginning to look as though there would be a settlement, and the Middle East could come to terms with their dispute and allow a degree of peace for the citizens of the whole area after almost 60 years of war and in turn helping the region to prosper. I have listened to the rhetoric from Iran, whose population in the main, I am sure, do not want to be dragged into what could become a very unstable region.

I really believe this and think that Israel will not allow itself to be pushed and bullied much longer. They are more than capable of defending their state and if "push comes to shove" they know that there are a lot of countries in this world of ours that would help them, but who do not want to participate in yet another large-scale war. We all know and saw how hard they can push themselves in what they did 50 years ago and retreated back into Israel for the sake of peace in the region and their country. Since then, like us in the UK, they have nuclear weapons, for use as a deterrent if needed. The Lebanon and its population should ensure that peace is their problem and not the problem of Iran or anyone else who wants to jump on their bandwagon.

It's really time for the very rich countries in the whole of the area we term as Middle East to get themselves involved in the peace process and use their diplomatic muscle. It's in their interest in the long run.