08/02/13 Letter sent to Western Mail

Dear Editor,

Having recently had the chance to read through the report produced by the Cardiff Business School and others about "Economic Opportunities for Wales from Future Onshore Wind Farm Development", I would like to make the following observations. Firstly this report reads like a large scale public relations exercise on behalf of the wind energy industry - not surprising since the exercise was funded mostly by the wind farm developers who stand to gain by its findings.  Secondly, at best, the report may be seen as a large scale business  plan with little attempt to provide any critical analysis or what any self-respecting economist would provide, such as cost benefit analysis. Thirdly there are many underlying assumptions made which are not spelled out e.g. that these developments will not involve extra costs for local inhabitants e.g. traffic congestion and property devaluation etc. etc.

Figures are confidently provided on Gross Value Added (GVA) and Full Time Equivalent Jobs (FTEs) without any detailed explanation as to how they were arrived at or how much confidence we may have in their accuracy. From the perspective of producing a new wind farm, the vast bulk of these jobs will be temporary and thus will not be sustainable in the rural localities where most of the turbines would be sited. I suggest the average number of new wind farms required per year, of something like five to meet targets, will inevitably involve large scale developers such as RWE with their own specialist staff and, as this report indicates, contracts will be given only to large scale firms, mostly outside Wales. Of course, profits and consumer provided subsidies will go to shareholders, also mostly outside Wales and in some cases overseas. The only way that wind farm development can provide us with such a bonanza is if there was large scale turbine production in Wales - something that this report's authors rule out!

Finally, there is a built-in paradox in the report in that developers and the Welsh Government prefer rural sites where there is more wind and less inhabitants likely to complain, whereas from an economic perspective, to reduce transmission costs and find more local contractors, these structures would be built near large towns or cities. The answer is probably to build all wind farms offshore where,  even if more costly, there is a lot more reliable wind and thus more turbine output.

Yours truly,

E.J. Razzell,  B.Sc. Econ., Master Mariner.      

N.B. This letter is unlikely to be published in the newspaper because of its length.

06/02/13 Letter published in Carmarthen Journal

Dear Editor,

Mr. Clubb makes a number of points in his letter of January 16 entitled "Wind power is cost effective" which I would like to refute. Firstly he states that serious climate change is real and that those who differ from his opinions are not relying on peer reviewed evidence - he is ignoring a recent statement from 125 international experts on climate change that the threat from global warming is exaggerated. If he is keen on peer reviewed evidence, how about the peer reviewed research from Professor Gordon Hughes showing that wind turbines deteriorate after 10 years and become totally uneconomic after 15 years? Mr Clubb has also mislead us about the article in the BMJ last March, presenting it as a mere opinion piece. In fact it took the form of an editorial and its arguments were backed by published research; and, according to the pro wind farm Professor Chapman, these studies were peer reviewed. Incidentally, the 17 studies he quotes, that state that there is no evidence of health effects from wind turbines, are also heavily criticised by the BMJ authors.

With regard to the evidence given to the Welsh Government Petitions Committee about the suffering of Gwddgrug residents from wind farms, if this evidence is to be dismissed out of hand then how come the Welsh Energy Minister is reported to have said that in this context  turbines could be sited further away from human habitation?

The assertion at the top of Mr. Clubb's letter that wind power is cost effective should also be taken with a pinch of salt. If his view were correct, then how come the wind industry needs such massive subsidies which are paid even when turbines are inoperative and have the effect of spreading fuel poverty in this country. I suggest that all the economic costs to the local economy should be taken into account as well as the costs of procuring damaging  production materials and then a different picture would emerge. It is obvious that apart from a few fortunate landowners, the vast bulk of benefits go to RWE and their foreign shareholders - otherwise they wouldn't be here!

I do accept there is some evidence of global warming but there is so much anecdotal evidence from all over the world about turbine based health problems, that an in depth scientific study should be carried out here, involving medical experts such as neuroscientists and epidemiologists. Prior to such a study, there should be a moratorium  on all new wind farm proposals. Wind farms may have their place but in this small island of ours there isn't sufficient wide open space for onshore wind farms to prevent an unacceptable impact on people's lives.     

Yours truly,

Ted Razzell

N.B. Those words which appear in italics were removed by the editor before publication.

Letter from David Clubb to Carmarthen Journal 16/01/13

Dear Editor,

In in letter entitled "Time to switch to tidal power", Mr Razzell states that opinions about global warming are divided among environmental Scientists. However, the position held by the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific organisations is that climate change is real and that changes will accelerate if emissions continue unabated.

Opinion on climate change is therefore divided between those who accept peer reviewed evidence and those who do not. The same applies to the alleged health impacts from wind power. Those who claim that there are adverse health impacts from wind turbines take 'as gospel' the research from non peer reviewed literature, whilst dismissing that from the body scientific.

Mr Razzell refers to the Welsh Government Petitions Committee whose recommendations were largely rejected by Welsh Government on the basis of the evidence. The only recommendation upheld,, that that there is a need for quality consultation with the local community , is one fully supported by the wind energy industry.

He also says that the British Medical Journal expressed concerns about the health issues related to wind turbines; however, this is not strictly true. The article that he is referring to was not written or commissioned by the British Medical Journal; it was an opinion piece and not a research article. Those interested in the subject could worse than read the comment by Simon Chapman , professor in public health at the University of Sydney, entitled "sickening truth about wind farm syndrome", where he lists 17 reviews on the subject which show an insignificant level of risk to health.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to fully develop wave and tidal power; however, it certainly should not be at the expense of wind energy which is cost effective, reliable and supports small businesses across Wales during development, construction and operation.

David Clubb, CPhys, FIWA. Director, RenewableUK Cymru