Coastal View & Moor News Issue 29 November - December 2012 Your Points Of View


The Editor wishes to point out that this page only contains the views of readers and are not necessarily the views of Coastal View.


Dear Editor 50 SHADES OF GREEN


There are many degrees of ‘greenness’ and wind turbines sit at the bottom end of the scale. The damage they do to the local eco-system


is well known and the wind industry should consider itself lucky that badgers can’t fly, given that the population in general doesn’t have the same degree of attachment to birds and bats. A second issue is that damaged wind turbine blades cannot be recycled. In Denmark alone a gigantic mountain of scrap blades – many thousands of tonnes – is building up. [Ref: Dagbkadet Borsen, June 10 2011, Denmark’s leading business newspaper.] Wind turbine blades are made from a


fibre thermoset composite and are not readily biodegradable and are prohibited from going to landfill under EU regulations. Energy intensive grinding of the scrap into


granules has been tried but there is no ready market for the output. Incineration is not really an option for,


in addition to creating toxic emissions, this would generate CO2. This, of course, is a global issue and apart


from damage due to occasional structural failure, over time a build up of dead insects plus other surface wear and tear reduces power generation by 20 to 30 percent, so for safety and efficacy the blades are replaced. The timescale can vary dependent on conditions with a minimum lifetime around seven years. Most green activists conveniently overlook


this and the biggest guilty ‘secret’ of all – the appalling pollution caused by the extraction of one of the 17 ‘rare earths’ – NEODYMIUM. Neodymium is used in an alloy with iron


and boron to produce the strongest permanent magnetic material known. This is used is most direct drive modern wind turbines at around 300 Kg. neodymium per MWt. nominal capacity. In Mongolia where 90 percent of the neodymium is currently produced approx. seven million tonnes a year of toxic, acidic and radioactive tailings waste is discharged forming a ‘lake’ which is already five miles across and 100 feet deep increasing by around three feet per year. Early this year Jamie Choi , an expert on


‘toxics’ for Greenpeace China said villagers living near the lake face horrendous health risks from the carcinogenic and radioactive waste. Ms. Choi went on to say: “There is not


one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment. Ores are being extracted by pumping acid into the ground and then processed using more acid and chemicals. Finally they are dumped into tailings lakes that are often very poorly constructed and maintained. And throughout this process large amounts of highly toxic acids, heavy metals and other chemicals are emitted into the air that people breathe


and leak into the surface and groundwater. Villagers rely on this for irrigation of their crops and for drinking water. Whenever we purchase products that contain rare earth metals we are unknowingly taking part in massive environmental degradation and the destruction of communities.” Food for thought and worst of all there


is no saving grace. As I will hopefully be allowed to discuss in a future letter there is no significant reduction in CO2 generation per unit of electricity produced when the complex grid system is looked at holistically. Modern 65 percent thermally efficient combined cycle gas turbines can work very well without wind power. The converse is not true and to support intermittent wind energy, gas turbines are forced to work very inefficiently. Wind turbines have no ecological, environmental or economic rationale. Terry Cox - Saltburn


Dear Editor, A message for Cllr Valerie Halton. It was refreshing to read your article about wind farms in the Coastal View Newspaper. I am a firm believer that we need to review where our energy comes from and in particular where our energy comes from with regard to our environment. An installed wind turbine on a windy day


does produce ‘green’ energy. If we look at the ‘big picture’ the everything required to manufacture and install the wind generator their green status disappears quickly. I’m sure we only need to look to the new offshore (just) development at Redcar and wonder how much fossil fuel burning energy has been expended developing the farm. In my capacity as an Electrical Engineer I


was able to look at the figures projected for the wind farm at Redcar and at best they were fabrication. The obvious downside of the wind farm is


its inability to store energy. On a windy day we have electricity but on a still cold day the wind turbines are reduced to ornaments. Unfortunately our needs are at variance with this and we need electricity on demand. Imagine waiting three days to boil a kettle and then only being able to take a turn to do it. Although large developments, the wind farms do not generate huge amounts of useful electricity. Something I have a real issue with though


is the ‘Green Lies’ preached about these wind turbines. A 14% increase in the number of the wind turbines has seen a 4% increase in the amount of carbon. So rather than being green these wind turbines are actually adding to the carbon liberated to atmosphere. Like many things in life I believe the way to determine the real reason for these wind farm applications is to follow the money. Wind farms have very little to do with ‘Green Energy’ but are useful lining pockets and in the case of the wind farm at Redcar it will line the pockets of the major shareholder of EDf – the French government. Without massive subsidies the wind turbines would cease over night. Surely we are able to see how much money these proposed wind farms are going to make for their owners. East Cleveland is a beautiful place to live and


it remains so as a result of the good and sensible works people like you are doing. Please keep up the good work, for without it East Cleveland will be spoilt by the greed of others. Mike McLaren


Your Points of View - Send your letters to us or email to: editor@coastalviewandmoornews.co.uk


We want to hear


Dear Editor I would like to thank everybody who kindly helped me to choose all my gifts for the “Love Box” scheme that my daughter and myself took part in with the “Children in Distress” charity shop in Guisborough. I found the following shops in Loftus very helpful:- My Price, Post Office, McColl’s Newsagents, Arnie’s Homeware and Gift Shop, the bottom Co-op and Harrop’s Chemist. The Charity was very grateful - thank you once again.


Grace Foster, Loftus


Dear Editor, I reply to Dr Birtill’s self-contradictory letter, in which he makes little factual attempt to properly respond to the six key issues about wind farms which I raised. Instead he prefers to go into philosophical debate about going ‘green,’ his personal feelings and how he “enjoys watching them (wind turbines) spin round.” So much for whatever keeps him amused! Readers will also see that both in this letter and


my previous one I do not enter into the debate on climate change per se (even though climate experts recently agreed there has been no change in average global temperatures over the past 15 years.) Instead my concern and fact-based comments are about the current proliferation of wind farms and the damage that these industrial electricity generating machines do for example, to the countryside, the health of those living close to them and increased energy bills for all households. Dr Birtill’s credibility with readers will not


be enhanced by totally changing his position regarding what he would do to objectors to wind farms. In his original letter he stated that any who opposed them “should have their electricity cut off and their car keys confiscated.” In his response to my letter he states (about the Guisborough proposal) “I realise that if any residents feel disadvantaged then they will object.” Guisborough residents will surely be most grateful for this concession from him. I am equally sure Dr Birtill’s invitation to any who want to support him has nothing like the 5,000 signatures which the objection campaign against the Guisborough Wind Farm is reported as having amassed in its first few weeks. Just as Dr Birtill’s scientific credentials are irrelevant in this debate so are mine. Rather it is the scientific appraisal of the facts which is the only important issue. Further, he attempts to deride all my comments because, without naming him, I state “another unnamed scientist agrees with me.” This remains so, but l will state that he and I have worked very closely together over a number of years on the subject of wind farms. Much of his career was at the highest level in the energy industry and, amongst other appointments, he has advised the government on energy policy and was a Personal Advisor to the Secretary of State for Energy. Dr Birtill then goes on to suggest “that any special knowledge [I] may have should be submitted to government for examination by experts.” His mind can be put at rest as I can state that the facts and associated views of my letter (as well as other) have been presented to Government Ministers and all relevant Government Departments. Dr Birtill ignores or dismisses the facts


of my first points about the relative global insignificance of the UK’s total carbon dioxide output (1.7% of total global emissions), and that China’s annual increase alone exceeds this, that developers are only in it for the money, the


effects of Government policy on unnecessarily


raising household energy bills, and that there are other more rational policies which would cost very considerably less. It is well documented that major wind turbine manufacturers (none of whom are British) are facing severe financial trouble, having to significantly cut jobs and investment as a direct consequence of changes of policy by Governments around the world. For the UK to not follow similar paths puts our nation’s world competitiveness and jobs at greater risk. Dr Birtill is deluded to think that wind farms


are businesses in the normal sense. They cannot fail, because at their outset Government agrees subsidy levels lasting 25 years, and developers will be paid this whether or not the electricity produced is needed or used. Who pays for this? Every household in higher energy costs. Normal businesses on the other hand have to compete for their trade, and purchasers can withdraw at any time, leading to financial failure. Contrary to what Dr Birtill reports, he should be aware of a growing mass of evidence, from very eminent specialist workers, to support claims of health issues associated with wind turbines. This has resulted in two major countries recently agreeing to investigate these claims in depth. Dr Birtill states “A thorough noise assessment is an important part of any planning application” and “.. potential noise levels will presumably be investigated by the council”. These comments show just how naive and ill informed he is about the planning process and who does what. Firstly, both the World Health Organisation and many acoustic experts have described in great detail how present procedures of noise measurement do not protect those living close to wind farms. Secondly, Council’s will do no such thing; they have neither the finances or resources to do so. Instead it is developers who do this, and all too often when their reports have been examined in detail they have been shown not to have been undertaken to the standards demanded. Dr Birtill does respond more conciliatorily regarding the effects of wind farms on house values close to them, and comments “a windfall as well as a wind farm.” But he totally misses the point. Any reduction in the value of a property is not currently a material consideration in the planning process, and is therefore not a valid objection. But why should someone have the value of their main asset reduced by such a nearby development, and be “bribed” to accept this in compensation? As anyone who has suffered a significant accident will know, awards of compensation are no substitute for their loss. Dr Birtill makes reference to his visit to Banks


Renewables exhibition at Guisborough. Did he, like me, challenge them about their then much exaggerated, and so obviously wrong, claim for their development offsetting 80,000 tonnes annually of carbon dioxide? As the astute scientist he claims to be on these matters he should have. Subsequently Banks have agreed with my figure of a fifth of their original claim, and are now using 16,800 tonnes (based on currently accepted, but still over optimistic, Industry standards). A letter which Dr Birtill will have received from Banks will refer to their claimed “mistake!” Finally, as readers will see Dr Birtill states


“... Mr Covell asks if I support the proposed development at Guisborough.” At no point did I ask that. His support is totally irrelevant to me, as I am sure it is to many others, some of whom may also hope “he gets on his bike,” which, from his letter, he appears to be so fond of! Malcolm Covell New Marske


Letters


39


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56