Tuesday, May 26, 2009
David Hansen (letter Monday) says just over eight Whitelees [(largest windfarm in Europe)] would be needed to equal one Longannet while Andrew Mitchell, more accurately says 15. However both are wrong [because] while those windmills might theoretically produce the same power, because wind is a widespread phenomenon. overall all 15 would be likely to be becalmed at the same time. That is why even Scottish Renewables have said that wind can only be a back up to genuine baseload. Thus the alternative to Longannet is 15 massive windfarms plus Longannet or if we are to use carbon capture, which is inherently less efficient the alternative would be 15 massive windfarms & 1.4 Longannets. Another alternative would be a 2 new Westinghouse AP 1000 reactors which can be built in 3 years (plus bureaucracy time) at zero cost to the taxpayer [& since CCS is expected only to capture about 90% of CO2,] at a far smaller fraction of the carbon footprint.
That the "Green" movement wants the expensive, ugly, environmentally intrusive, [nanny state] option not the reliable, inexpensive, safer, free enterprise, low carbon one suggests they are not as convinced of their catastrophic warming scare stories or indeed of caring for the environment as [they pretend].
Most of the editing tightens it up but I regret the deletion of the "nanny state" option, in direct comparison with nuclear being the free enterprise one & that my accustation that the Greems "pretend" to care about the environment has beed downgrade to them "stating" it.