Turbine troubles

The recent pros and cons 
aired over wind turbines (Letters, 29 August) lead me to point out that Germany tried wind turbines but found them not to be a “rip-roaring success”.

They found them expensive to locate and they needed 
replacing after ten years. They were noisy and do not create the power one hopes for.

So now Germany has embarked on developing power from huge deposits of lignite (brown coal), recently installing new coal-cutting juggernauts.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Just why are we pursuing wind power? Have we got some super advanced turbine that 
no-one else has?

Mike Twaddle

Marshall Place

Milnathort

May I add a significant point to the excellent letters published criticising wind electricity?

The whole point of horrendously expensive wind farms was the claim that they saved fossil fuel and dramatically reduced CO2 emissions. The public blindly accepted this claim.

Politicians, who have openly supported wind farms, risk 
damage to their green credentials if they suddenly admit they are wrong.

Now, to add to their worries, yet another study, this time by C (Kees) le Pair in the Netherlands, concludes that there are negligible savings of CO2 and that some wind developments actually increased fossil fuel 
consumption.

This study concludes: “It makes wind developments a mega money pit with virtually no merit in terms of the goal of CO2 emission reduction or fossil fuel saving.”

People have suffered landscape destruction, health problems, noise, reduced house 
prices and higher electricity bills, and after all that wind 
turbines have failed to deliver on their declared purpose, which was to dramatically reduce emissions and fossil fuel use.

Politicians must now admit they were wrong or be held to account for blindly accepting the developers’ promises, which have now been found to be 
either flawed or dishonest.

Clark Cross

Springfield Road

Linlithgow