Letter: Windfarms are not vital

11:18am Wednesday 14th May 2008

Comments (0)   Have your say »

Congratulations to Dr Khan for saying exactly what the wind farm companies (the ones making masses of money from us) want him to say.

Like many other people I thought Lambrigg Wind Farm at New Hutton was probably a good idea, until I had better information. But how many people spend time to inform themselves about energy, yet alone wind farms, and where is that information?

Therefore it would not be surprising if a survey showed that people support wind farms. A little research, however, reveals that wind power does not, in fact, live up to the claims of its advocates, that its impact on people's lives is far from benign. I want my money spent on research etc on other energy saving and renewable schemes.

Dr Khan quotes the developers' figures on numbers of households the Armistead turbines claim would be supplied. They don't say for how long and with how much power they will be supplied and that for much of the time it will be very little and for 50-100 days it will be nothing.

He quotes three-six months pay back on CO2 for the construction and installation; most figures quote two-three years. They then talk about CO2 free generation for 20- 25 years. This is misinformation. When the turbines are generating, because of the unreliability and unpredictability of the wind, other generation is having to be on spinning reserve, operating, but at reduced power and efficiency, also producing CO2. Some say more CO2 than the wind turbines save.

Old Hutton and neighbouring parishes have many essential services here already ie oil, gas, water, all underground, and the M6 and national grid lines above. I don't think the M6 is unsightly, and noise can be reduced with trees. It saved all that traffic coming through Kendal, many readers will remember it.

The national grid power lines are unsightly but when first built in the 1930s enabled a third of the country's power stations to be closed down. Both these I believe are vital and acceptable. But if the wind did not blow for only one hour a year, wind farms would not enable one other power station to be closed. Building wind farms is an extra, not an instead of, and not vital or acceptable.

What I find one of the most unacceptable aspects of Armistead Wind farm would be its proximity to people's homes. The advocates of wind power should explain to these people why they should risk having their lives changed by a new unsightly, noisy giant, and their property devalued, and for what? Just so they can feel green!

I support any group which encourages saving energy and helping to stop polluting our land. I do not feel selfish in opposing Armistead Wind Farm. I think Dr Khan and South Lakeland Action On Climate Change should rethink what they are suggesting as this, to me, is selfish.

Ann HinchliffeOld Hutton