Monday, May 09, 2005
PRO-NUCLEAR ANTI-WINDFARM LETTER ALSO NOT PUBLISHED BY THE INDIE
Do I see a trend here:
Dear Sir,
Your correspondents have every right to believe that covering Britain with 10s of thousands of windmills will enhance the landscape (letters 23rd April) - beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder. They do not have the right to claim that windmills will solve the problem of CO2 release - the "renewables" industry have publicly admitted that windmills cannot provide any part of our baseload because they only work on average 28% of the time thus most of our CO2 producing capacity must be retained. Equally they cannot honestly claim that wind is "cheap" - in fact it costs an average of 8p a unit whereas nuclear costs 2.3p. Again it is not truthful to claim that high level nuclear waste will last for "thousands of generations" - in fact such radioactivity will be down to official safe levels (the real safe level is much higher) within 50 years & down to the level of the ore it was mined from in a few hundred.
These facts are not difficult to determine & it is quite improper to claim as facts things that clearly aren't. Should they wish to enjoy the delights of windmills to the horizon in every direction Greens should offer to pay for them themselves. 24,000 pensioners die every year because of fuel poverty - it is positively immoral to charge them more for useless windmills merely to improve the view.
It is equally improper to claim to support windmills on the grounds of global warming. It is a fact that, as well as being safe, reliable & cheap, nuclear is the only way currently feasible to cut a large proportion of CO2 release.
Yours Faithfully
Neil Craig
Dear Sir,
Your correspondents have every right to believe that covering Britain with 10s of thousands of windmills will enhance the landscape (letters 23rd April) - beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder. They do not have the right to claim that windmills will solve the problem of CO2 release - the "renewables" industry have publicly admitted that windmills cannot provide any part of our baseload because they only work on average 28% of the time thus most of our CO2 producing capacity must be retained. Equally they cannot honestly claim that wind is "cheap" - in fact it costs an average of 8p a unit whereas nuclear costs 2.3p. Again it is not truthful to claim that high level nuclear waste will last for "thousands of generations" - in fact such radioactivity will be down to official safe levels (the real safe level is much higher) within 50 years & down to the level of the ore it was mined from in a few hundred.
These facts are not difficult to determine & it is quite improper to claim as facts things that clearly aren't. Should they wish to enjoy the delights of windmills to the horizon in every direction Greens should offer to pay for them themselves. 24,000 pensioners die every year because of fuel poverty - it is positively immoral to charge them more for useless windmills merely to improve the view.
It is equally improper to claim to support windmills on the grounds of global warming. It is a fact that, as well as being safe, reliable & cheap, nuclear is the only way currently feasible to cut a large proportion of CO2 release.
Yours Faithfully
Neil Craig
