In an article appearing in the Telegraph by Gill Erin, contributing editor at Environment Analyst, she tells us, in no uncertain terms:
"But arguing against wind energy is, well, a waste of energy. Denouncing wind turbines in favour of another technology, such as nuclear, tidal and wave, solar or even "cleaner" coal is missing the point. The argument is over." (my emphasis)
Admittedly she does go on to propose that our energy sources should be 'diversified' on the basis "there is strength in diversity".
On the matter of wind turbines though, one question has always puzzled me. As it is an acknowledged fact they are of only intermittent benefit for electricity production - because either there is no wind or because they have to be shut down due to too much wind - can someone please explain the logic in spending millions on something which only works 'part time'? (Omitting from this question of 'part time' benefit the matter of MPs salary, allowances and expenses)
Who rules the world – a summary
2 hours ago