Renewables can’t meet all our energy needs

THERE are at least 75 new applications for wind power sites across Wales, with hundreds of new “Fawlty Towers” varying from 660ft (200m) to 820ft (250m) high.

At present the tallest wind generators in Wales are just 400ft (120m) high. Think of them twice as high. No other country has these 250m monsters, the length of more than two football pitches. Wales already has well over the electrical energy it requires from just one gas power station in Pembroke. These applications, if granted will further desecrate our remaining hillsides.

There is a simple formula to remember: If Wales had 100% energy from solar when there was no wind, it would need 100% energy back-up at night and dull and wet days. If Wales had 100% energy from wind when there was no solar, it would need 100% energy back-up when the wind was too light or strong. If Wales could achieve 100% wind and 100% solar capability, there would always be the need of 100% gas or nuclear back-up on a night or dull day, when the wind was too strong or light. So why are we carrying on allowing wind turbines?

In fact, wind energy is only 25% efficient and solar 10%. Whatever Wales spends on destroying the country with new wind turbines – with their 1,500-tonne concrete bases, pylons, cables, access roads and substations – there is always a constant need for 100% back-up from gas or nuclear sources. And the EU has just confirmed that “generally speaking, using natural gas to generate electricity or to heat or cool many homes at once will be considered sustainable, while other uses may be excluded”.

No country in the world can rely upon just wind and sun for energy requirements 24/7. And largescale energy storage does not exist. But Welsh politicians think they can achieve the impossible, ramming through every application and becoming 100% dependent upon renewables. I repeat, it is impossible. God knows what understanding they have of the laws of physics.

It is a pity criminal charges cannot be brought against politicians, who wilfully disregard economic, scientific and environmental facts to justify some green dogma.

Tiny Wales already has seven times the density of wind “farms” compared to England, a country that you can drive across for hours without spotting a wind farm.

Wales is responsible for 0.03% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and Welsh policies will do nothing except ruin tourism, devalue housing and spoil the landscape. At the end of their useful life, up to 25 years, their foreign owners will sell them off to some anonymous company in a tax shelter, which will then go bankrupt. Thousands of cement blocks will remain, altering water tables and causing flash floods while the unrecyclable blades and towers will hang there, testament like coal tips to the status of Wales as a dumping ground. As usual, Wales, one of the poorest regions in western Europe, will suffer in silence.

Terry Breverton

Penarth

Labour should look to ditch Starmer

MOST of the voting population of the UK will have been glad to hear of Boris Johnson’s resignation as Prime Minister, as the country has been clearly mismanaged under his premiership.

At present we are witnessing an astronomical rise in the price of fuel, gas and electricity, and a rail system that is a joke – offering a poor service at a premium price. With fuel and energy prices the cost of everything has risen greatly, and we now have inflation running at around 9 per cent. Both Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss do not appear to be able to offer anything meaningful for the working population, so there will be no redress there.

The alternative would be the Labour Party. In Keir Starmer’s leadership election in 2020 he pledged that: ‘Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.’

Critics would argue that private companies are better, but Starmer could point to the success of the German and Dutch state railways, who use profits from rail franchises in the UK to help subsidise their own railways. Also, companies like EDF Energy who supply gas and electricity to six million homes in the UK, which is 85% owned by the French government.

Under public ownership any profits would not disappear abroad, but would go to the UK Government or be reinvested in improving services, or reducing the cost to its customers.

As Alexsandr Orlov would say, “simples”. A policy that would reduce energy prices, railway fares and thus inflation would surely be a tenet that would resonate with the majority of the electorate. It would be a Labour equivalent of the Tories proposing tax reductions. Let battle commence. But no. Last year Starmer ruled out nationalising big energy firms. Now he has stated that Labour would no longer renationalise the railways, despite repeated promises to do so.

What exactly does this man stand for? Can anyone say what Starmer would do if he won the next election?

Starmer has also categorically ruled out any chance of re-joining

Tiny Wales already has seven times the density of wind ‘farms’ compared to England...

Terry Breverton Penarth

the EU. In the 2016 referendum 62% of Scottish voters voted Remain, likewise 56% of Northern Ireland’s and 60% of Greater London voters. Hence in 2022 neither of the two major parties offers any hope of getting back in the EU. Since the chaos of Brexit many Leave voters have gone on record as saying they would not have voted that way if they knew the consequences beforehand. Perhaps Starmer should promise another referendum (by the time of the next general election the 2016 referendum would have been eight years past).

He could put the condition that a minimum of 60% of voters must vote Rejoin before such a step could be acted upon.

Couple this with nationalisation of energy companies and the railways and Labour would have a very clear, tangible and positive manifesto, which the electorate could evaluate. Instead Starmer has stated: “I take a pragmatic approach rather than an ideological one.”

Translated, this means he will put forward no clear policies and nothing controversial, in the hope of being elected by default, with the

electorate voting on the Tories’ record. With Johnson as Prime Minister this might have worked but, with a rejuvenated Tory Party and a new leader at the helm, this might not be the case.

It is clear that Starmer has as much socialism in him as Margaret Thatcher did. So, come on Labour, ditch Starmer before the next election and put someone in charge who believes in the Labour manifesto and can give us a government to be proud of.

David S Evans Danescourt, Cardiff

No fun without Boris

WITHOUT Boris on the front bench,

PMQs will be better balanced – as it will be totally charisma free. In fact, the Commons will be more like the Senedd in Cardiff, which seems to model itself on comedy-free versions of the church meetings in the Vicar of Dibley TV series.

Brian Christley

Abergele

The small print: Letters will not be included unless you include your name, full postal address and daytime telephone number (we prefer to use names of letter writers but you can ask for your name not to be published if you have a good reason). The Editor reserves the right to edit all letters.