THE WIND POWER CON

Simon Jenkins, in the Guardian, on the giant Romney Marsh wind farm:

The turbines are near pointless. Their cost per megawatt is double that of even the most costly nuclear power. Since wind power is intermittent (under half of the time), the latest figures from Germany's grid indicate that they will require back-up from conventional stations kept running at 80% of the turbines' capacity. This renders the actual saving in greenhouse gases marginal, if not trivial. The statement by Npower that each unit from the Romney turbines will displace an equivalent unit of fossil fuel just cannot be true, any more than its statement that they will "prevent the annual release of 130,000 tonnes of CO2". To "cleanse" one coal-fired station is better value for money.

Given the energy that goes into building and backing up turbines there are moves, I am told, to declare turbine power no longer "green" for global warming purposes. The programme survives on £1bn of subsidies so that ministers can be seen to be making cosmetic sacrifices in the cause of global warming. Turbines waving across someone else's backyard deflect attention from the government's failure to invest in more dependable renewables such as water, wave and biomass, and in nuclear energy.

Nuclear power has another usually ignored advantage over wind farms:

As for landscape destruction per megawatt hour, there is no contest. Nuclear wins.

Supporting wind power isn't about making the right choices for the future, it's about feeling good about yourself. The road to hell...