It should be noted, this is the view of the paper, not simply one pundits point of view, and the UK Telegraph, while employing a few Climate Realists, such as James Delingpole, and a willingness to provide alternate views, isn’t exactly right wing
(UK Telegraph) Wind generation accounts for a tiny proportion of our electricity supply and its impact on conventional power production is negligible. Perversely, if more turbines are built, more power stations will be needed as a back-up for when the wind is not blowing. Yesterday some turbines were shut down because the wind was too strong. On top of that, they also ruin the landscape. There are enough doubts about the efficacy of wind power to justify the increasing scepticism among Conservatives about its future as the cornerstone of the Government’s energy policy.
The question here is regarding PM David Cameron’s push for more alternatives, which is a worthy goal. Of course, wind power is not going to really replace fossil fuels, and ethanol is not only worthless, but, according to warmist doctrine, just as bad, if not worse, for the environment and globull warming. The Telegraph notes the “generous taxpayer subsidies” and that windpower is a miserable failure, to paraphrase. Perhaps one day, but, not today.
To my mind, if we have to dump godawful amounts of taxpayer money into alternatives, it should be towards credible research designed to produce feasible and usable solar and wind energy generation.
Yes to research! No to subsidizing companies (ie dumping godawful amounts of tax payer $$$) that have not proven themselves. No MORE doing that- we’ve seen all our tax dollars flushed down already.
And before implementing large amounts of renewables, the research may be able to predict and resolve all of the adverse effects that can be produced by changing the landscape with giant towers and covering it with solar panel fields.