I HOPE that Brian Wilson (Letters, February 12) is wrong, as wind power has to be a critical element in the strategy to wean civilisation off fossil fuels and mitigate global warming.
That the global climate is in danger is evident in the disappearing ice in the Arctic – arguably the canary in the mine pointing to the presence of serious and unnatural global warming.
Mr Wilson states that wind power is a green myth because output is unreliable, being available only 25% of the time. This is true only of a single wind farm. Farms at opposite ends of the country operating at different times in different winds could have an aggregated output of 50%. Farms spread over the continent could in theory be generating power 100% of the time if enough were built. However, this need not be necessary.
Strategies are being formulated at the European level to co-ordinate the development of wind farms with solar farms using photovoltaic and reflector methods of generation, tidal power, wave power and geothermal power systems, all connected through a low-loss high-voltage DC grid system. At the engineering level it is already being envisaged that such a geographically diverse system could easily be backed up if necessary with massive energy storage systems based on pump storage hydro-systems, battery storage based on revolutionary lithium-air techniques and massive energy storage based on compressed air, to "fill-in" any power gaps that might occur in extreme conditions. There is no good engineering reason why a power supply system based wholly on renewables cannot be reliable and dependable.
Mr Wilson also suggests renewable energy would be grossly expensive under independence. There is growing evidence to suggest otherwise. Bloomberg New Energy Finance has released new research concluding that wind power in Australia is already cheaper than coal and natural gas. Cost superiority remained even when the price Australia charges polluters to emit carbon is discounted.
Alan J Sangster,
37 Craigmount Terrace,
Edinburgh.
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