THOSE who lobby for the wind industry in your pages implicitly assume that deployment of renewables in Scotland, or indeed the UK, will have a significant impact on global carbon dioxide emissions.
This is not the case.
Scotland’s annual emissions are just over 50 millions tonnes. If the Scottish Government’s target of 42 per cent reduction was achieved, this would result in a reduction in global emission capacity of about 20 million tonnes per year.
However, between 2008 and 2010 China and India, the two countries where the largest increase in emissions is taking place, were adding more than 100 million tonnes per month of CO2 emitting capacity. This was mainly due to the construction of new coal-fired power stations.
Thus, meeting Mr Salmond’s “targets”, which incidentally would cover about 2,500 square kilometres of Scotland with turbines, could delay whatever effect global CO2 emissions may be having on climate change by just six days.
Jack W Ponton, FREng, Emeritus professor of engineering
Dr Richard Dixon of WWF is on a flawed mission with his wild claims that we’d be crazy not to exploit Scotland’s natural advantages (Analysis, 10 April).
Frankly, his claims don’t stack up. Wind energy brings poverty to people everywhere. It has been reported that wind energy costs a whacking 9.8p per unit, whereas the cost for gas is 2.3p; for nuclear 2.5p. The cost and reliability of energy is important in people’s lives. Wind power fails on all fronts.
You report on the submission from Prof Jane Bower to the renewable energy inquiry at the Scottish Parliament (10 April).
Prof Bower used words that will be warmly welcomed by those who oppose the “headlong dash for antiquated and inefficient wind turbines”. Her positive comments on shale gas are timely. American gas prices are now half of what they were three years ago, lowering electricity prices. Their energy prices are half of those in Europe.
The usual suspects, with vested or financial interests, co- ordinate their attacks to condemn Prof Bower.
Niall Stuart, of Scottish Renewables, knows shale gas needs no subsidies and would make wind turbines obsolete.
Greenpeace “was not aware of any analysis that showed Denmark was exporting wind power at a loss”. Unbelievable.
Denmark produces 20 per cent of its energy from wind, but only uses half of that and the rest goes to waste or is exported at a loss. Dr Richard Dixon of WWF also gets into the act with feeble generalisations.
Could I ask all these pro- renewables people one simple question?
What difference will Scotland’s “green renewables crusade” make to the planet while the rest of the world refuses to curb CO2 emissions?
Clue: Scotland has only 0.15 per cent of global emissions.