Sven Laptop, Tuesday, 12 December 2006, said:

"Let's get serious here - you're not criticising wind energy, you're criticising the electricity distribution system which, like the coal-based generators, is so old that it's in desperate need of being updated."

The age of the power lines has nothing to do with the fact that wind power acted like a loose cannon during the German grid crisis. Electrical engineers, last year in the E.On report, said that they had no solution for windpower's uncontrollability.

You also said: "So why don't we concentrate our energies on improving the infrastructure so that ALL forms of electrcity generation, especially the non-polluting ones, can be easily accommodated."

Windpower is indirectly causing more C02 emissions through the fossil fuel plants operating to back it up as it fluctuates erratically. It is not, therefore, a "non-polluting energy" - though C02 doesn't fall into the polluting gas category. It is essential to plant life.

You concluded: "Unless of course you have some kind of vested interest in seeing clean energy shut out of the picture altogether ... which might explain why you bother writing to small regional newspapers on the other side of the world claiming to be an expert in their issues.....

Sound familiar, Mark?"

A personal attack? Gee wiz, you must be feeling threatened... Why? Do YOU have a personal interest in windfarming?

I bother about Australia because I love its land and its birds, because I go there a lot, and because I have friends there. I visited the Bald Hills site in South Gippsland, and would surely hate to see a windfarm ruin that beautiful region and chop its birds to bits. All that to produce a trickle of intermittent electricity at a great cost to the taxpayer.

It good to know you love Australia, Mark. It's just unfortunate you don't have the same love for objectivity and checking your facts. Why didn't you tell the punters who read this forum that much of Bald Hills is not in its pristine state, having been cleared for farming. And that the oft cited wetland there that some birdies (and birdo's) love so much, is mostly artificially created.

Beauty is in the eye of the the beholder Mark. Accept that and accept that we cannot continue as we have done in past. Wind energy is part of the solution even if you do not want to see it.

So, according to you, if a landscape has been touched by man - e.g. agriculture - it's OK to go all the way and turn it into an industrial zone? - On that basis, how about transforming your garden into a junkyard?

And you're wrong again when you say that wind energy is part of the solution. In fact it's a cure that is worse than the ailment.

Mark Duchamp

Claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant is quite silly! While carbon does enhance plant growth and is necessary to sustain life on earth, the anthropogenic excesses of CO2 that we are emitting into the atmosphere is indeed polluting and increasing GHGs.

You need to know that other damaging hydrocarbons catalysing to CO2 are very damaging. For instance, CO elevates methane and ozone in the atmosphere before converting to CO2.

Poor combustion, which is prevalent in many stack industries, produces CO and chlorinated dioxins and furans, particularly when burning waste oil, which our federal government encourages as part of its "recycling" programme! While sodium chloride, the salt of the sea, is a natural part of the environment, chlorine is man-made and highly destructive to all life forms on the planet.

We are already adding to the natural releases of CO2 from volcanic eruptions etc. by digging up fossil fuels, burning it and overloading the system.

Atmospheric CO2 persists for about 200 years but the lag between the release of CO2 and its impact on climate is between 50 to 80 years, therefore, only the foolhardy would ignore the extreme anthropogenic emissions we are creating today (and with the inherent uncertainties), for future generations tomorrow.

I do not believe that wind power turbines are yet dismantling in Europe (with the exception of Holland) and wind power turbines in Esperance Western Australia have been established since 1987 with great success and expanding. Albany WA, has the largest windfarms in Australia, established in 2001 and estimated to prevent 77,000 tonnes annually of atmospheric carbon. Smaller ones such as that in Denham established in 1998 and Exmouth are deemed successful. I am yet to read of any of these communities objecting to living in close proximity to these turbines.

I believe the barrow you are pushing has everything to do with the extremely dangerous and polluting uranium mining and the insidious ramifications of nuclear energy. Perhaps you should just own up and peddle your propaganda on a more appropriate site.

The turbines in Albany have been up since 1987 and they're still "estimating" its benefits? As you say, global warming is too important to continue pursuing such a dubious "solution."

Can wind power be used to power a desalinisation plant in such a way that when the wind blows the pumps are turned on and the water is pumped through the membranes and then the clean water is pumped to a reservoir for use as needed? That would seem to limit the variability problem.

A similar system could be used to generate hydrogen and then the hydrogen could be stored and used whenever it was needed.

Are there other ideas out there that limit the impact of the variability of wind?