Another article reporting on efforts at developing renewable energy, and another crop of shrill, predictable diatribes from the anti-renewables group and Professor Anthony Trewavas (21 January).
The gist of their arguments seems to be that the current costs and unproven technologies of renewables should not even be tried and those existing installations should be removed.
Instead, we should continue to use technologies which, while cheap and available now, absolutely will not be so in a short period of time in terms of human history.
The short-sightedness and selfishness of supposedly learned men who think only of their personal financial position is depressing.
Professor Trewavas goes on to suggest that we “forget about ‘green’ and ‘clean’ until the rest of the world agrees”.
Using the logic that holding a minority view and doing nothing until the majority agree, presumably means that he feels that democracy is a daft idea, as any persons view, represented as a single vote, is inconsequential and therefore you should not bother.
Congratulations for publishing the letters from Professors Trewavas and Ponton concerning the power potential of the tidal race in the Pentland Firth.
It was extremely refreshing to read – for a change – facts. It made a great change from reading the ramblings of the green lobby, the misunderstandings of the journalists and the deliberate misrepresentations by Nationalist politicians.
Perhaps I can point out a few more things that never seem to be mentioned.
Professor Trewavas mentions cost of energy, but what do we mean by energy? All of the talk about renewable energy involves electricity – and the need to avoid gas.
But how many of us have looked at the relative costs? A typical cost for gas is about 3p per kilowatt hour. For electricity a kilowatt hour will cost about 15p.
Gas is less efficient for domestic heating than electricity, but even so, heating the home would cost about three or four times more if we were to rely on electricity rather than on gas.
Another point to remember is that modern living relies hugely on chemicals; life would be very different without them.
And what is probably the most common starting chemical? Yes, gas.
So when the politicians tell us that the future lies with renewable electricity and not with (possibly fracked) natural gas remember they are not comparing like with like and they are implying much higher cost of living.
I would love to know if anyone has ever come across a person who has had their mind changed on the subject of climate change and renewable energy thanks to the strong views of somebody else.
When it comes to topics such as fracking and wind farms, people seem more inclined to shout their views than to listen to anyone else’s.