IN response to the Letters (February 16) from John Shields and Richard Leonard: Although at DARE we specifically support the development of renewable energy at a small (domestic/community) scale, you cannot spend your life working in this sector without coming to appreciate the urgency and scale of the energy/climatic crisis, as well as the lifestyle changes that it will cause over the coming years. Further delays in addressing the crisis will bring an increased impact on climatic change, and the extent of resource depletion. It?s not intellectually challenging to appreciate that we need to urgently replace our existing systems with a sustainable energy supply that is neither polluting nor leaves unmanageable and dangerous wastes. Our Devonshire landscape is indeed of very high value, which is why about 50% of it is ?protected?, and effectively off-limits to developments like wind farms. But you can?t protect everything, especially when human welfare and that of the wildlife with which we share this planet are at stake. The plan is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, so that concentrations in the atmosphere are stabilised by 2050 at a level that will avoid climatic change spiralling out of control, although the most recent research suggests that this figure may be set too high, and the time left to reach it shorter than was thought. To deliver that plan, there are strategies for low carbon housing (with very challenging aspirations for energy efficiency and saving) to add to those for Renewable Electricity on land as well as (separately) offshore. It is going to be very difficult to meet each of these, and the suggestion that this is an and/or situation trivialises the challenge in all these areas beyond measure. The geographical distribution of wind turbines, wind patterns throughout the country and the existing standby capacity to cope with shut-downs of traditional power stations leaves the ?standby for wind? argument floundering; as has been comprehensively re-confirmed by recent technical research. We can save carbon emissions by producing energy from renewables instead of fossil and nuclear fuels, regardless of how many power stations are retained ?just in case?. As regards nuclear power, it would actually require three to four ?Hinkley Points? to supply the South West?s electricity needs, and it would be interesting to know where they would be put to give access to seawater for cooling but be able to cope with rising sea levels, and how the nuclear fuel would be transported throughout the region. Added to that is the demonstrably greater cost of nuclear power when fully costed, and the problem that it doesn?t actually avoid carbon emissions because of mining uranium and transporting it around the world. Wind power is certainly not the answer to all our problems, but it is a positive and effective step that we can take now to get us started. We need all the options at our disposal and we would be following a very high risk strategy if we ignored the best solution we have right now in the hope that something better will turn up in time to rescue us from the mess we have got ourselves into. When considering any appeal against planning refusals, inspectors will be taking these reality issues into account in a way that although required of them, appears to be beyond local planners. Paul Baker Managing director Devon Association for Renewable Energy
