‘Green’ can be costly

Have your say

When Christopher Bornett feels he needs to resort to insults, it is a sure sign that he and the other proponents of wind farms think they are losing the argument (Letters, February 17). Being noisy and critical of others who hold alternative views is not the same as winning a persuasive argument.

A very high proportion of scientists are now accepting that so-called climate change may not be inevitable, probably not man-made and only a continual cycle which the Earth has gone through many times.

Over the past 15 years there is no evidence of a rise in global temperatures.

Manufacture of windmills use enormous amounts of energy which take at least five years of use to repay. They need continual maintenance. They are intrusive and a permanent eyesore with only a 25 year life span.

Just because something is renewable or green does not mean better – in this case it means expensive and incredibly inefficient.

Government has recently admitted that if we allow this lemming-like rush to so-called green sources to continue, all our electricity bills will be a whopping 27 per cent higher than they would otherwise be. The fact that even now numbers of old and vulnerable people are only able to heat one room is glibly dismissed. It appears they should stop complaining and pay the huge subsidies, so that (mainly) foreign wind farm manufacturers can take huge profits each year.

Wind power, whether on or off shore is by no means the cheapest or easiest way to cope with this emergency. We need more UK companies building new gas or nuclear power stations.

New generation stations in areas of geographical stability produce very cheap, very safe and potentially very (UK) profitable energy

Chris Sutton,