More than a co-incidence over wind

three significant and co-incidental events in the space of just a few days; the arrival of winter, the (unrelated) resignation of the hither to Minister for Energy and Climate Change, and a sizeable Parliamentary rebellion against wind farms as a part of our energy policy.

The slightly unexpected support for that protest contained in your editorial (Yorkshire Post, February 6) was another welcome event.

Your comment acknowledged the known failings of wind farms and the continued need for coal, while not going so far as to mention nuclear power and shale gas reserves. In this connection, it has to be noted that present policy allows for some fossil-fuelled power stations but only if equipped with carbon capture and storage – another vast project which recent studies suggest is likely to prove impracticable.

These hints of second thoughts on wind turbines are good news, but they are so far limited to the onshore variety.

Offshore turbines are even more expensive in terms of installation, connection, maintenance and repair. Higher wind speeds are encountered at sea, so I suppose there will be further incidents of turbines bursting into flames.

When their numbers are swelled by a further 7,000, their effect on sea life and birds may become significant.

And as for shipping, I imagine new challenges await the navigation officer!

A long way to go before sanity is regained, but austerity could prove to be the stimulus.

From: Paul Morley, Ribblesdale Estate, Long Preston, Skipton.

CAN someone answer me two simple questions about wind turbines.

Firstly, if no subsidies, were available would any have ever been built?

Secondly, and more importantly, when the wind doesn’t blow and they don’t generate power or the wind is too strong and they have to be stopped, why do the Government give our money to the turbine companies for not producing electricity?

Surely it should be the other way round?

If certain weather conditions exist that stop the operation of the turbines, this must surely be seen as a fault with the whole concept making them not fit for purpose.

The companies should be legally bound to reimburse the taxpayer for failing to provide electricity. If I buy a car and for three days a week it doesn’t start, I don’t give cash to the motor company for those days it is not working, do I?

It’s the same principle!

From: Mike Gillson, Quarry Lane, Birstall, Batley.

THE new Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, should have settled into his office chair by now.

Is it a good time to ask him how the much of the nation’s need of electricity has been provided by onshore wind generation over the last couple of weeks?

What’s in a name?

From: Fiona Lemmon, Clifton Byres, Clifton, Maltby, Rotherham.

I AM sure that Ian McMillan’s Nominative Determinism column (Yorkshire Post, February 7) will bring to light many amusing surnames appropriate to trades or careers.

I have a few of my own to put forward. I remember a spokesman for a water authority being Mr Wells and a spokeswoman for a wildlife trust being Heather Bird.

Of course, there are those surnames which defy Nominative Determinism.

The one that comes to mind is the name of a gentleman in a senior position at a cruise line company – Mr Flounder. I suppose it would have been worse had he been called Founder.

And then, of course, there are all those unfortunate people who have a combination of names which make you want to crack out laughing – for example, Annette Kirton, Emma Royds, Wilde Bull (her surname was Rose until she married!).

But that’s another story ....

From: Monika Close, Hallcliffe Crescent, Horbury, Wakefield.

IAN McMillan’s piece put me in mind of something that happened some years ago. We had gone to the seaside, I think it was Whitby, when we had a puncture. We went to the nearest garage to have it repaired, and the owner was called Tyreman. How weird is that!

Tolerance is not approval

From: William Snowden, Butterbowl Gardens, Leeds.

I WAS disturbed to read that the Archbishop of York has been subject to abusive emails (Yorkshire Post, February 7).

There is nothing “controversial” however, about Dr Sentamu’s stated position that a church wedding is held to sanctify the union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony: he is simply upholding a central tenet of the Christian faith.

Until relatively recently, homosexual practices were considered to be deviant and immoral and, indeed, a criminal offence.

Today, a more tolerant attitude prevails.

But tolerance does not necessarily imply approval – discretion is a virtue!

Political correctness is a perverse and pernicious philosophy which has infected the body politic.

It has given rise to zealots who seek to cow and subjugate “non believers.”

Those who believe in traditional values must stand firm and refuse to be intimidated.

John Sentamu is a good and honourable man.

He is brave, and he is virtuous. He deserves our support.