YOUR correspondents, David and Caroline Wood (Observer, March 29), make a number of statements about wind turbines that need challenging.
Wind turbine blades may well be turning 80 per cent of the time but, because for most of that time they are revolving at too low a speed to produce their designed capacity, their average output is, at best, 20 to 25 per cent.
In order for the lights not to go out, fossil and nuclear-fuelled power stations are required to operate continuously.
Why, therefore, go to the expense of building wind turbines?
We should learn from the Danes, where their obsession with wind turbines has led them to have the most expensive electricity in Europe.
France, which enjoys 80 per cent of its electricity generated by nuclear, has the lowest electricity bills.
With regard to the power lines from a nuclear power station being blown down, thus cutting off electricity to many, this could happen no matter what type of generating plant.
A report from KPMG – a highly-respected accountancy firm – confirms that even if you want to reduce CO2 emissions (and that’s another big debate), we are going about it in an irrational and hugely expensive way.
KPMG say we could achieve the same CO2 reductions much more efficiently by investing in nuclear, solar and gas, instead of wind.
This would save each of us £550 a year, which would be a great help to the economy and help to stimulate consumer demand.
In the 1950s it was found nuclear power could be produced using uranium or thorium as the fuel.
Because thorium is unsuitable for nuclear bombs the Americans and the UK went for uranium.
However, thorium is much safer than uranium, produces less waste, and it should now be the preferred fuel for nuclear power stations.
Thorium-fuelled nuclear power stations are already generating, or are soon to be generating, electricity in the USA, China, India, and Norway.
St Leodegar’s Way, Hunston