You all know my opinion on the biofuels con, but is wind power the technology that could succeed where others fail? I don't think so
Cornell University's David Pimentel called biofuels: 'Unsustainable subsidised food burning'. I believe that windfarms are just as much of a dead end they cause highly subsidised devastation of the landscape Let me explain why
When windfarms are located properly they are an excellent source of power, but the devastation they cause to an environment can be significant. They are in no way environmentally friendly.
Try 6 free issues of MoneyWeek today
Get unparalleled financial insight, analysis and expert opinion you can profit from.
Start your trial
Sign up for MoneyWeek’s free twice-daily newsletter.
Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Windfarms make the landscape an eyesore coupled with the noise, that's why people do not like them close to where they live and protest vigorously when one is to be sited close to their home. They also kill birds.
Latest Videos FromMoneyWeek
These turbine constructions are so massive that they need 1,000 tonnes of concrete to hold then in the ground. They also need a lot of road infrastructure for maintenance. In general, turbines are sited in some of our most naturally beautiful areas. How stupid is destroying a beautiful landscape for environmentalism? It doesn't make sense.
Britain is a small, overcrowded country we have got very little space. Countries such as the US or Australia have vast uninhabited wastelands in their interior. This makes wind farms more attractive for them but not for us in this tiny cramped group of islands.
'Wind farms not in windy places...'
The reason I am writing about this subject today is an article I saw on the BBC website on Thursday. It just hit home what an utterly ridiculous proposition this whole thing is. The article's headline said it all:
Wind farms not in windy places
Environmental consultant Michael Jefferson has said that farms are being built in areas of England, Wales and Scotland without enough wind. Obviously, the wind industry denies it; but they would, wouldn't they?
Erm, excuse me I do not have a Nobel Prize in physics, but I hazard to suggest that wind is an essential ingredient in the wind-power mix Just a thought.
The whole wind-power push appears to be a complete waste of time, money, effort and energy; and it's all down to politicians trying to live up to some false standard of being "green" for publicity purposes, because let's face it, being green is a publicity stunt in many cases.
Take Jamie Oliver for example Please, take him
(The reason I am picking on the Mockney Moron is that the Daily Telegraph referred to him as a "national treasure" yesterday and the ludicrous statement irked me. He is not the only PR green, however.)
About a year ago, Mr Oliver's company issued a press release saying that he was planning to install wind turbines on top of his Fifteen restaurant in Cornwall. How lovely
The story was picked up in the national press and he got lots of free publicity for his business venture. Such gushing column inches are hard to come by and they are valuable
One year later I have not heard anything more. I suspect that if these turbines had been constructed it would have made it into the press yet again. It hasn't So are they there or am I just a little bit more cynical than I think I am?
If anyone has been to Fifteen recently and spotted them, I'd appreciate it if they could let me know
Many respected environmental scientists agree that wind power is yet another dead end. Take Dr James Lovelock, the man who developed the theory of Gaia.
Lovelock's Gaia theory is fascinating. It has been described as the "Earth as a living organism" theory. Basically, Dr Lovelock proposed that the earth is a self-regulating, living system rather than the Darwinian view of competing physical, chemical and biological interests.
Lovelock is an inspiration for the Green movement and a well-respected thinker. His views on wind power..? He abhors it.
In an interview in 2004 he was asked why he did not support wind power when it was a "natural" form of energy. He said:
'Lots of things are good in nature - like motherhood - but it can be an absolute menace in certain circumstances.'
So what is the solution then..? Lovelock believes nuclear power is the only form of energy that will not contribute to global warming and could supply enough power for the planet He believes that it is the only sensible way forward. I concur
So at last, something to celebrate I'm agreeing wholeheartedly with the greens Well, with the more intelligent greens, anyway I wonder what Jamie Oliver thinks he's sure to have an opinion if it will get him into the newspapers.
By Garry White for his Garry Writes' newsletter. To find out more about his monthly newsletter, Outstanding Investments, which expands on his views and makes specific recommendations in the resource, infrastructure and biotech sectors, click here: Outstanding Investments
Investing in shares can lose you some or all of your investment. Never risk more than you can afford to lose. Small company shares can be illiquid and carry higher risk than other shares. Past performance is no guide to the future. Consult a financial advisor if unsure. Fleet Street Publications Ltd. 020 7633 3600
