Dispelling the hot air over windfarms. (Crewe Chronicle, August 2013).

Dear Sir

 

As a Chartered Electrical Engineer I believe I can offer some common sense and objectivity in the discussion over a proposed Wind Turbine.

 

The case for Wind Turbines, and justification for the 11% surcharge on everyone’s energy bills which subsidises them, is based on published government figures, claiming that the 4072 Wind Turbines in the UK will contribute 6.3GW (Gigawatts) of power for the National Grid. A quick bit of maths reveals this would require each turbine to produce over 1.5MW (Megawatts).

 

Technical Data from the Danish Manufacturers of most of the UK’s wind turbines shows that to achieve this, each Turbine would need to be at least 64m in diameter (large off-shore turbines have rotors of this size) and the wind would need blow at a constant and ideal 15m/s (meters per second).

 

Clearly, the government’s figures are based on a best-case, ideal set of circumstances that can never be achieved. The wind seldom blows at exactly 15m/s, let alone constantly. Indeed at wind speeds of above 20m/s, most Wind Turbines must be deactivated to prevent damage or destruction to their delicate mechanisms. Hence, the case for this particular form of renewable energy is completely flawed.

 

My reasoning is confirmed by consideration of the National Grid’s own on-line, real-time information for the amount of power produced by each source at any time. (http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/). As your readers will see, the actual amount of power generated by Wind Turbines rarely exceeds 0.5GW, less than 10% of the figures claimed by the government.

 

The environmental justification for Wind Turbines also flawed. Because the power they produce is intermittent and unpredictable, Gas Fired Power Stations must be kept running ‘on standby’ to make up the difference when they are not operational. Running a Gas Fired Power Station in this ‘on-off-on-off’ manner is far less efficient than running it constantly, just like a car engine.

 

On this basis, I would suggest that the funding of Wind Turbines through massive public subsidy is based on a con, is costing us billions of pounds, and storing up huge energy generation capacity issues for the future. It makes far more sense to invest in more predictable tidal and wave renewable energy sources, and in the research and development of Thorium based Molten Salt Process Nuclear Reactors, which have many advantages.

 

It is this sort of accurate scientific and economic based reasoning that underpins all UKIP policies, including that on Energy.

 

Cllr. Stuart Hutton CEng MIET (UKIP).

Crewe Guardian Letter: Response to Labour praise for Industry-Destroying EU.

Dear Sir

Labour Councillor Kevin Hickson writing in your August 28^th edition demonstrates a total lack of understanding when he claims that the recent good news of investment in a new model at Bentley’s Crewe Plant was as a result of our membership of the EU.

If he understood anything about industry and commerce, he would know that successful companies like VW make decisions on where to invest based on the availability of relevant skills, abundance of materials and resources and a competitive tax regime, and not the whim of corporatist, undemocratic bodies like the EU.

The decision to build the new Bentley SUV in Crewe is due to the skills, hard work and diligence of the people who work there, and nothing else.

Indeed, the EU is responsible for the transfer of thousands of manufacturing jobs away from the UK. In 2005 the EU stopped a UK Government Bridging Loan of £150m to MG-Rover, bringing about its collapse at the cost of thousands of jobs. This whilst turning a blind eye to the French Government who in the last year have pumped €5bn into Peugeot-Citroen.

It is the EU which forces the UK Government to adhere to strict European Tendering Rules for public contracts which has virtually destroyed our Rail Industry. This whilst turning a blind eye to blatant protectionist public procurement in most other EU member states.

The EU provides grants (from our taxes) to companies like Twinings Tea to close their factories in the UK and relocate to Eastern Europe.

If Labour considered the effects of its blundered and ideological polices on the working people it claims to represent, a great many of them would now be in gainful employment in good jobs.

Cllr. Stuart Hutton CEng MIET (UKIP).

Crewe Chronicle Letter (11/9/13): Response to Labour calls to re-nationalise the railways. 

Dear Sir

Rather than be drawn into the tit-for-tat mudslinging and name-calling to which some of your correspondents have resorted, having very much lost their arguments with UKIP, I will address in my letter issues more pertinent.

Dr. Adrian Heald correctly highlighted the underperformance of our railways in your last edition. However, his limited understanding of economics led him to the wrong conclusion, blaming the woes of our railways solely at the feet of ‘privatisation’.

The faults in our railways are not simply due to their ‘privatisation’ so much as the botched manner in which they were privatised. Indeed, the system we have has all the disadvantages of Nationalised Industry with none of the advantages of Private. 

As any economist will agree, the advantages of Private Industry stem from competition – innovation in products and services, cost-efficiency and accountability. By granting companies an effective monopoly on most routes – and removing competition - the government has obviated the opportunity for any of these benefits.

Furthermore, by failing to establish a properly functioning market for Rail Travel, the government has given the operators the green light to make excessive and unfair profits at the expense of customer service. By forcing train operators to bid for franchises, the government also severely limits the amount of capital these companies can invest in new trains and facilities for the comfort of Rail Users.

Once has only to consider the benefits achieved in the Telecoms Industry by unleashing the power of the markets. As a Nationalised Industry, one had to wait 6 months for a phone line to be fitted. Now, after privatisation, and creation of a market, we can stream High Definition Feature Films to a mobile handset, and call the other side of the world for a few pence – all due to the pressure of competition between providers and the imperative to innovate and develop new technology and services.

Certainly, some aspects of our railways, such as track and other infrastructure do lend themselves to a ‘Natural Monopoly’, where some degree of public control should be exercised, and operators charged for their use, the proceeds of which should be invested in their maintenance and improvement.

In calling for full nationalisation of our railways, Dr Heald has clearly forgotten the dire days of British Rail, and rather than suggesting a Common Sense solution, he jumped immediately to the Socialist’s favourite ideological answer for everything.

Cllr. Stuart Hutton CEng MIET (UKIP).