The letter from Alison Mitchell (September 3) makes a strong case for shifting investment from inefficient windfarms to small-scale, renewable energy-producing schemes, integrated into local communities.
This is borne out by last Thursday's BBC Radio 4 programme Costing the Earth, the central theme of which was that most onshore windfarms will not reach the necessary 30% load factor (average amount of wind generated in a year) to make them viable. Further, because subsidies are so attractive, applicants are encouraged to exaggerate claims as to wind speeds and the amount of potential energy a farm can supply, as well as the households that can be serviced. Planners cannot dispute these claims as they are forbidden to comment on the technical or commercial considerations relating to an application. This inefficiency of power generation is exacerbated by a lack of consistency of wind supply, certainly borne out at the Braes of Doune, where the turbine arms are rarely to be seen other than at a standstill.
In essence, planning permission is being sought for most onshore windfarms based on subsidies, not performance or practicalities.
The contribution of wind energy to reducing our carbon footprint is laughably small, but hysterically costly - £90 per year for most households is quoted. We can reduce our carbon footprint by the same trivial amount for nothing, just by using use a bit less electricity and gas, and taking public transport a bit more often.
To make a real difference, if money is to be spent on generating wind energy, it needs to be offshore, not onshore, and with a clear strategy for creating the supporting infrastructure. Ottilia Saxl, Cuillins, Orchil Road, Auchterarder.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article