‘Unreliables’ do more to destroy environment than save it

Sir, – I notice a call for an “honest energy conversation” (The Press and Journal, Letters, October 25).

So, here is the brutal honesty for interested readers.

Have you ever wondered how the much-vaunted “energy transition” is getting on? The short answer is it isn’t.

Here are the details few deluded politicians will admit:

The world has spent close to $10 trillion – yes, trillion – on so-called “unreliables” yet 20 years later wind and solar combined produce less than 3% of the world’s energy.

Ninety-seven per cent of all machines that move are still powered by oil, with oil, coal and natural gas still providing 84% of the world’s energy.

The mining for the raw materials required to make short-lived “renewables” will have to increase by more than a staggering 1,000%!

On top of that, the energy to process and convert these non-renewable materials into “renewables” will require even more planet-devouring mining. The whole lot will require replacement by 2050.

A World Bank study has recently confirmed that “green” technologies are significantly MORE materials intensive than our current energy mix.

To quote recent, revealing documentaries: “You use more fossil fuels to do this than you’re getting benefit from it”. And you are “better off burning the fossil fuels in the first place”.

Expert calculations also show that our present energy mix occupies 0.5% of our land surface, expanding wind and solar would require an astonishing 25% to 50% of the land surface area. What room will that leave for farming, food production, people, nature and wildlife?

Before any more damage is inflicted on besieged, rural residents and wildlife, the crucial question our ever-so-green politicians should urgently be asking: If “renewables” are so great for the environment, why do they keep destroying it? George Herraghty. Lhanbryde,

Elgin.

Wind farms are being used to reduce carbon emissions.