JULIAN Ashworth was right in attempting to correct the biased letter, regarding wind power, of MEP Roger Helmer. Unfortunately in doing so he is guilty of even more bias in the opposing direction.
The issue of global warming is agreed by the vast majority of the scientific community.
It is misleading to suggest that oil and gas resources are dwindling – the earth still has huge fossil fuel resources, enough to provide for decades to come. T
he problem though is that the resources are in a form which provides technological and ecological challenges.
It is a fact that many European nations produce more wind energy, per capita, than we do. The percentages of wind power compared to other forms of energy are however so small as to make comparisons with the UK less than useful. True, Spain has produced 40% of its power requirements from wind. This was however on one particularly unusual day, the norm being more like 6%. Interestingly Spain relies heavily on gas and nuclear when wind energy is not available, gas power being the growth area.
To suggest we are 'far behind' Spain due to this again adds little to a balanced argument. One could equally argue that we lag way behind France who produce 80% of their energy from Nuclear.
With the nuclear argument the issue of subsidies is raised. In fact, at present, wind energy is far more subsidised than nuclear, on a kilowatt hour basis, even taking the present nuclear decommissioning into account. It is arguable that we would have any wind energy at all if it wasn't for subsidies.
In terms of greater risk, there is no scientific substantiation for nuclear being less safe. No electricity production can ever be completely safe no matter what the source.
As to boosts to economies – there are arguments for all types of energy. The contribution of wind power is however non-existent – the small extra that a land owner gets being offset by loss of land.
Mr Ashworth alludes to what smart business minds know. It seems that, with arguments like his, you are only smart if you agree with his opinions. Smart business minds have been arguing for years as to the best way forward – a consensus is a long way off.
It is extremely easy to provide cheap electricity with available resources, but with a huge environmental cost. It is also extremely easy to provide very 'green' electricity but at huge financial costs, which would severely limit availability to the poorer. The way forward to satisfy our future energy needs lies somewhere between the various extremes.
Sadly, it will be our politicians who make such decisions, the very people who are happier to jump on the latest bandwagon rather than investigate and act upon all the facts and will try to persuade us they are right with yet more misleading and biased views.
Chris Dent
Brown Edge Road
Buxton
The full article contains 492 words and appears in Buxton Advertiser newspaper.
