Monday, March 05, 2012
I have it on good authority from a marine engineer that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel, tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless quest, so the repair bill is going to be horrific and the output disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed, necessitating costly repairs.
If this is true and I assume it is, it must have been known for some time by government that all the cost estimates made by them, which included expectations of very favourable falls in prices real soon now, were wholly false. all the claims they have made about windmills ever being practical were total (and in maintaining them deliberate) lies.
Alex Salmond has based his entire future power programme on the assumption that our wind electricity would be produced at merely 3 times conventional prices and that England would buy as much of it as we could produce at that price. Then, since windmills only work at 25% of capacity, that England would sell us their power when we needed it at commercial rates. I wonder if the Westminster government told the Scottish one of this - one or other of them has clearly been dishonest for that line to be maintained.
OK and Secondly
Not so much an intellectual point as Matt putting his own money where his mouth is.
A family trust has signed a deal to receive £8,500 a year from a wind company, which is building a turbine on land that once belonged to my grandfather. He was canny enough not to sell the mineral rights, and the foundations of the turbine disturbs those mineral rights, so the trustees are owed compensation. I will not get the money, because I am not a beneficiary of the trust. Nonetheless, the idea of any part of my family receiving ‘wind-gelt’ is so abhorrent that I have decided to act. The real enemy is not wind farms per se, but groupthink and hysteria which allowed such a flawed idea to progress — with a minimum of intellectual opposition. So I shall be writing a cheque for £8,500, which The Spectator will give as a prize to the best article devoted to rational, fact-based environmental journalism.
Admirable is understating it.