Rampion wind farm - more food for thought

To paraphrase Professor Peter Gardiner’s opening in his letter (August 29) the pro-turbine lobby is at it again, he refers to Christopher Booker as an economics pundit, not an expert in turbines.

This raises the question just how many Lib Dem politicians or indeed other politicians are experts. I can’t think of any, certainly not Ed Davey BA in PPE and Masters Degree in Economics or locally Norman Baker and Caroline Lucas. Perhaps he can let us know of an MP in his party who is.

Why didn’t he address Dr Tony Parker’s letter (August 22)and has he heard of Dr John Etherington, former reader in Ecology at the University of Wales and author of The Wind Farm Scam.

His comments on the Rampion Farm sea view are based on sea level. Well try this – standing anywhere 20m above sea-level the distance to the horizon is 16km. So from the Brighton cliffs and beyond all well above 20m the whole of the farm would be in view. As the hub height for the turbines is 124m, these and the rotors will also be visible from the promenade.

With respect to the vast subsidies, without which no wind farm would be built, consider the London Array where the initial players dropped out and it was only when Gordon Brown doubled the subsidy for offshore farms that a new developer found the project “viable”.

Check Government sources forsubsidies paid.

Effect on wildlife? The second phase of London Array has been cancelled as the area is where Red Throated Divers over winter.

Depression is an illness and there have been plenty of recorded cases where wind farms have been the cause.

Just who were the originators of the all sorts of illnesses and magnets killing thousands scares, have I missed something?

The turbines won’t be assembled at Newhaven and local labour will probably be about 30.

Has he realised that the E-ON statement that the Rampion 700mW farm will provide power for 450,000 houses is a fiddle with figures? Here is how it works, 700mW divided by 450,000 is 1.55. As the wind speed over a year is variable take a load factor of 0.35% (0.35) of 1.55 = 0.543 kW. Multiply this by the hours in a year 8760 and the answer 4750 kWhours, on your bill 4750 units which is about the average yearly household need, so it will supply power equivalent needs over a year of that number of houses, but no surety of supply when needed. E-ON have confirmed “this method is more tangible to the community and has been widely used in the industry and accepted by the DECC” (Ed Davey’s department). “Governments everywhere are building renewables”, are they? The USA aren’t. They are using fracked gas. Germany have 11 coal fired power stations and have more planned using imported cheap coal from the USA where it is no longer needed. China and India are also building coal fired stations as their main energy source.

Can he provide accredited data that the Glyndebourne turbine exceeds the predicted generation quoted at the public enquiry?

I don’t know if anybody has considered the possibility of terrorist attack on an offshore wind farm.

Rampion will have two small transformers and control jackets through which all the power generated will pass. A small vessel under cover of darkness could place and detonate semtex against part of the structures and the whole farm is out. Is that scare-mongering? I leave it to the readers.

All the above is food for thought, but the tragedy is that the government have only now recognised that we will have serious problems with energy supply until we can be sure of a guaranteed supply with a balance of nuclear and gas fired power stations.

Brian Beck Lewes