Turbines less noisy than motorways

SARAH PRICE (Letters, October 22) asks how I dare take issue with Brigitte Schorn regarding wind turbines.

I dare because Ms Schorn is incorrect in much of what she writes. Other than raising this rhetorical question, Ms Price fails to take issue with a single thing I actually said.

Yvonne Sheehan (Letters, October 22) also takes exception to my “dismissive remarks” regarding the so-called health effects of wind turbines.

My remarks are dismissive because I do not believe turbines have such effects. Living in a town, near a motorway or under a flight path would have far greater adverse effects from noise. Both Ms Price and Ms Sheehan refer to the loss of value of their properties. But that is an issue I did not address at all.

Dick Keane (Letters, October 22) begins by quoting me out of context when I said wind power was “incredibly effective”.

I said this because it allows us to capture energy from a source of infinite supply without generating CO2 emissions. This is, in fact, incredibly effective.

We are agreed that wind turbine output is variable, so it is wrong to say I ignored this. That is the nature of wind energy. But to claim it is therefore useless is nonsense.

Fluctuations in output can be averaged out by connecting to the national grid, as in Denmark where 20% of its electricity is produced by wind. Incidentally, Denmark intends to increase this to 50% by 2025.

Is Mr Keane seriously making the claim that it will be necessary for the Danes to continue to back up this output using conventional means? If so, then their aim for 50% dependency on wind energy is pointless. Could they be so foolish? I doubt it.

James McGrath

Birchgrove

Hollyford

Co Tipperary