Letter: Wind of change
He serves us all well in articulating and summarising the arguments against windfarms from various contributors that have featured in the letters page, over the last year.
In response, we have had little practical or serious engagement from the proponents of wind energy, apart from the occasional contribution from naive and enthusiastic polemicists in favour of the landed interests and developers.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe most deafening and indeed shameful silence has, however, come from the Scottish Government and its energy minister, Jim Mather.
I now challenge Jim Mather to respond to the challenge laid out by Struan Stevenson and others andto the truths apparent on the Neta website regarding the relative input of wind to the UK energy supplies.
In particular, could he inform us how many wind and tidal turbines will be required to replace fossil fuel sources, where we are going to put them and what will be their environmental and economic cost?
Ron Greer
Armoury House
Blair Atholl
Struan Stevenson's views (Letters, 14 September) should be very heartening to Scots who know a waste of money when they see it, coupled with despoliation of our beloved country by wind turbines.
He is perhaps the first MSP (or MP) to go public with such a condemnation in this controversy. He should not be the last.
Those people who see wind or wave energy as a basis for the renaissance of our manufacturing industries should recall, given the almost useless potential of present turbine equipment, dependent on taxpayers' subsidies, that Scotland's future industry should instead come to make products we can be proud of.
Renewables, while still needing research and development, are now seen in their present forms only as a waste of money, falling down into the "green" drain.
(Dr) Charles Wardrop
Viewlands Road West
Perth