No

by Allan Taylor

Created on: December 11, 2008   Last Updated: December 14, 2008

No, they are not.

Wind farms are ugly blots on the landscape.

The ones I have seen are an environmental and economic disaster and should never have been built in the first place. They wouldn't have been constructed without Government subsidy. The politicians have been forced by the Greens to subsidize wind farms and many other non-viable renewable energy projects. Why? Because it brings them votes.

Recently I toured the coastal region of Spain and Portugal where the scenery of the beautiful Atlantic coastline and adjacent mountains is marred by these monstrosities of a previous age and half of the towers were in a state of disrepair and not working.

I call that a deliberate despoiling of the environment. What a paradox! The Greens, who say we must preserve our environment, tread carefully, leave only footprints, go and promote these ugly monstrosities of wind turbine towers all over the place and so ruin the scenic beauty of the landscape. The Greens are mad!

In Australia, where I live, some wind farm proposals have actually been turned down for reason that they would present a hazard to bird life, in particular migratory species that would fly into the turbines.

Then there is the economic aspect of them to consider. The local farmer on whose land they are built is happy because he gets a rental income for doing nothing. Everybody else in the locality is not so happy about having this eye sore on the horizon. Furthermore, there will be many grumblings when peoples' power bill increases by maybe 30% or more for the privilege of using "green electricity". It has always puzzled me when you have only one power line to your house how you can distinguish between "green electricity" and "black electricity" which comes from thermal (coal) power stations. Maybe I'm stupid to ask these questions?

The major problem with wind farms is that they operate only when the wind is blowing at a convenient speed. No wind means no electricity generated. Also, if the wind is too high they shut down, and that is the ideal theoretical situation. In practice they are an economic disaster because you always have to have a backup of a base load generating plant (e.g. coal, gas or nuclear) which has to operate all the time anyway, either full steam ahead or on standby. So why build the wind farm in the first place? The electricity generated by the wind farm is twice the cost of that coming from a large thermal generating plant.

Many of these wind farm projects are glamorized by the promoters saying that they will provide electricity for say 50,000 homes. Ideally, and when operating at full capacity maybe, but at best in practice they will be generating electricity at only 30% of capacity. What happens at periods of peak demand, during a cold spell, or a hot spell? Murphy's Law operates. Rarely does peak demand coincide with convenient winds! The backup thermal plants provide the shortfall of electricity. Again, I say, why have the wind farm in the first place.

I'll tell you the reason why we have wind farms.

They are part of the religious dogma of the Green fundamentalist religion.

Briefly, they (the Greens) hold the belief and promote the theory of "Cataclysmic Global Warming" which means that manmade CO2 emissions are polluting the atmosphere and cause global warming. This apparently is a bad thing and should be stopped. Therefore, all countries should ratify the Kyoto treaty and reduce their CO2 emissions! At this very moment they, the "carbonistas", (all 10,000 of them) are congregated in Poznan, Poland wasting the taxpayers money deliberating over a load of bunkum at the UN Climate Change Conference. A highlight of the conference is a speech by the main US proponent of this unproven theory, Al Gore, who is not a scientist, nor has he passed Chemistry 101. True, he is a celebrity, a former Vice President , a Nobel Prize winner and a very charismatic character, I agree. But like Richard Nixon, would you buy a used car from him?

If you want to jump on the global warming bandwagon, then do so, but I suggest that this lucrative bandwagon will fizzle out within two years time, so watch out!

It follows from this idea, that burning coal (or natural gas) to generate electricity is polluting the atmosphere, we therefore must tax those industries that emit this dangerous gas. Like the EU, we must have an "Emissions Trading Scheme" (ETS), which is more accurately described as an "Emissions Trading Scam", or an "Extra Tax System". By doing this we avert the supposed global environmental catastrophe and hopefully close down those terrible coal fired power stations which provide electricity at cheapest cost. This way the price of electricity skyrockets to be comparable to that generated by wind farms, and solar plants, which are even more expensive.

So, within the Green mind set, if I interpret it correctly , it is more important to save the world from supposed cataclysmic global warming than it is to worry about despoiling the landscape with ugly wind turbines.

Well, that was a very long winded explanation. Needless to say, what the Greens carry on about is pure bunkum. CO2 gas is not an atmospheric pollutant at all but is a harmless and vital component of the atmosphere upon which all life depends.

I am glad that Obama is going to be the next President of the USA. He is a gifted orator and a very astute politician. I wonder who he is going to appoint as Secretary of Energy and the Environment ? Is he going to promote renewable energy such as wind farms and solar power at the expense of fossil fuels?

If so, then I have grave fears for the future of the US economy and the US standing as a leading world power.

Ends

Learn more about this author, Allan Taylor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.