Wind power study says opponents’ claims are unfounded
What price should we pay for an unblighted landscape? This article based on a new think tank study from left leaning IPPR suggests perhaps a high price is worth paying it tells us:
A new study into the efficiency and reliability of wind farms has concluded that a campaign against them by Conservative backbenchers and others is not supported by the evidence.
The report, from the left-leaning thinktank IPPR in association with the leading energy consultancy GL Garrad Hassan, concludes there is no technical reason why turbines should not be supported.
Reg Platt, an IPPR fellow, said government and local communities were right to scrutinise costs and planning issues, but that the report showed “unequivocally that wind power can significantly reduce carbon emissions, is reliable, poses no threat to energy security and is technically capable of providing a significant proportion of the UK’s electricity with minimal impact on the existing operation of the grid”.
Claims to the contrary are not supported by the evidence, said Platt, who pointed out that the study had been peer-reviewed by Nick Davis, the head of the Institute of Energy at Cardiff University.
The economic model GL Garrad Hassan adopted showed that every megawatt-hour of electricity wind power produced led to carbon savings of a minimum of 350kg.
So the case for reducing carbon emissions is made. Nuclear is just as effective at doing that but no one is rushing to build lots of new nuclear power stations, where however is the rounded debate on the wider issues around the contribution such farms make to the actual communities where they sit? I am sure you will have views!!