SOME people have been making the point that wind turbines should not be subsidised on their energy produced as we all have to bear the cost of this.
However, this somewhat understates the case against wind turbines.
It does not mention that massive new pylons will have to be built to accommodate the severe energy fluctuations of wind and we, the public, will have to bear the additional transmission costs incurred (which would be unnecessary if we stuck to nuclear and gas).
Moreover, we will have further indirect costs since government (local and national and the NHS) and industry and commerce will also have significantly higher costs - wind power costs - to pass on to us in the form of higher taxes and charges for goods and services.
Nearly all of a wind turbine is imported machinery and material.
In this country we have a very great opportunity to do something different. Under Cornwall we have a nuclear material called thorium which is abundant, doesn’t need to be imported, and is cheaper and (relatively) less toxic than imported uranium.
Why doesn’t government support this, virtually a new science area of nuclear physics, so as to give the UK a world lead? Why doesn’t it give more support to tidal power (there are several kinds) for the same reasons?
R A SMITH
Ann Beaumont Way