Wind farms

However, I suspect that he is basing his figures on the rated output of the turbines, not the actual amount of energy they produce.

This is, as Jim Allan points out in his letter of September 10, only about a quarter of the rated output.

Indeed, last year the Government’s own figures for energy produced showed wind energy being only 21 per cent of rated output.

Therefore, the time it takes for a wind farm to produce more energy than it took to build could be as long as 40 months, and the amount of carbon emissions saved over its 25-year life correspondingly reduced by about a quarter.

Furthermore, as Mr Allan points out, gas or coal-fired power stations have to be there to fill the gaps in output from the wind farms when the wind is not blowing at the optimum speed, and as these power stations have to be up and running, they are producing sizeable amounts of emissions all the time.

Mr Johnson, like other protagonists of this silly and expensive wind farm idea, conveniently forgets these facts.

As I have said before, no energy-producing company would produce a single wind farm were it not for the profits they are making from Government hand-outs, paid for by every one of us via our vastly inflated energy bills.

Finally, may I urge The Northern Echo, when printing articles about wind energy, to print the actual output of the turbines, not the rarely achieved rated power quoted by the energy companies and the Government.

As Mr Allan says, Durham’s wind farms produce about 40MW, not 165MW. Or, to put it another way, is about 14 per cent of the county’s needs, not 55 per cent.

Derek Thornton, Stanley Crook.