THE diverse comments on energy (Journal, March 2) may have generated more heat than light.
Mike Robinson’s point about local electors’ views being overridden by South Kesteven District Council’s planning department should concern all of us. David Smith highlighted the irrationality of wind turbines - both in terms of their iniquitous subsidies and their total unreliability. Alison Robson disagrees with both of them, but takes a rather simplistic approach in her ‘green vs nuclear’ debate - as if those were the ony two choices.
We shall clearly need several options to replace dwindling energy resources, but wind is probably the least sensible. Tidal energy is totally predictable (should have been developed many decades ago). Hydro-electricity has been successful for over 60 years in the UK and worldwide. Anaerobic digestion was mentioned; since every town and village has to treat its sewage, why not use that locally to produce methane for generators instead of using bought-in electricity to power aerators?
Nuclear reactors are much more efficient nowadays, and I can think of no UK reactors threatened by a tsunami.
Since the USA and China together produce 40 per cent of global emissions and UK only contributes two per cent we may ask: Why are we the only nation bankrupting ourselves with ridiculous targets for ‘emission reduction’?
Why are we buying ‘carbon credits’ at silly prices and does anyone actually understand how this will benefit us?
The posturing politicians in the UK who introduced the Climate Change Act in 2008 were either totally conned by the flawed science of the zealots, or they recognised a perfect opportunity to rip more money off taxpayers, disguised as ‘saving the planet’ - maybe a bit of both.
Bourne Road, Colsterworth