Dispelling some of the myths

VIEWING the opinions of some readers over the past few weeks regarding the proposed Litlington wind farm, I feel that I must dispel some of the rumours surrounding this form of electricity generating, and indeed the global warming myth that appears to be clouding many people's minds.

Too many of the public seem to have been brainwashed into believing that the ultimate alternative renewable energy is in the form of wind power.

In fact, the antithesis is true. Wind farms only activate at about 7 per cent, or even at less efficiency in this part of the country, due to the low wind speed, and obviously produce nothing when there is no wind.

Because the energy produced cannot be stored, conventional power stations are required to be on standby to deliver adequate electricity for customers.

This adds approximately 1.7p per unit to the underlying cost of wind generation.

The Royal Academy of Engineering reports the total cost of wind power at 5.4p per unit against 2.4p for coal, gas, or nuclear.

To add insult to injury for the poor customer, the only people who really benefit financially from wind power are the generating companies and the land owners. They are paid a handsome subsidy, titled the Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC), which currently amounts to 3.4p per unit.

The public, as consumers, pay this subsidy over, and on top of the normal electricity generating cost. For the electricity company this would be worth somewhere in the region of £5 million extra per annum.

As the environmentalist David Bellamy states: "It is time we all realised that the only beneficiaries from wind farms are the commercial organisations that build them."

These wind farms are far from eco-friendly in many other respects. Installation of this particular one would have a major impact on everyone living, travelling, or working within about six miles. The turbines will dominate the appearance, and character of this cherished landscape, and have the potential to adversely affect the quality of life for thousands of people.

They will also be a huge distraction for motorists on the already overcrowded A505. The proposed farm on the A14 in Cambridgeshire was turned down for this reason alone.

The usual height of these monsters is at least 400 ft. Compare that with Nelson's Column,which is a mere 151 ft.

Bird migration in Spain, where they have virtual deserts of these things has been all but decimated. In fact, wild life there has virtually been eradicated.

But it is the sheer noise of these brutes that has a decimating effect on the local populace. Whooomph, roar, noises, projects away from the turbine, so with a prevailing s/w wind the main areas affected would be Litlingon, Bassingbourn and Kneesworth, with a westerly Royston.

Jane Davis, and her family, farmers from Deeping St Nicholas in the Lincolnshire Fens, have been forced to vacate their farmhouse due to unacceptable noise levels from 82 megawatt turbines that were located by another farmer south of them.

She told me that originally her family had supported wind energy. "We were naïve enough to believe the literature issued by the developers," she said. "Moreover, they did not publicise that noise pollution was going to be a significant issue.

"We cannot tolerate it any longer and we have been forced to move away".

Jane now campaigns vociferously against wind farms in towns around the UK and Europe helping other campaigners combat developers of these turbines.

Denmark, where turbines were introduced 30 years ago, has now bowed to public pressure and stopped allowing them to be erected onshore because of the noise hazard.

Television reception has also been known to suffer, and those Crow readers to the south of the projected turbines, Therfield, Reed and even as far as Cottered, and Buntingford could be severely affected by transmission from Sandy, which would be damaged by their obstruction to the signals.

I am one of many people who now believe that man is not by any means wholly responsible for the erratic world climate change that is rapidly taking place.

More to the point the belief that is now blatantly apparent is that the earth is just going through another phase of its climatic history, and man-made gases are contributing in only a small insignificant manner to the problem.

Christopher Booker takes to task the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC).

He states that he has seen a report that paints a damning picture of the IPCC's ruthless case to impute that man is the greatest predator to world climate changes.

He says that it is grossly flawed, and, if believed, will leave us severely vulnerable with inadequate agriculture production.

If farmers are in need of extra cash they should be looking at other ways of diversifying their production.

CLIVE PORTER

Melbourn