Letter: Against the wind

Sir: Our district, Holderness, is currently suffering a flood of planning applications for wind turbine projects which has caused many of us to research the subject in detail, and the level of local opposition has become overwhelming ("Labour rows back on wind power pledge", 23 March).

"Our" turbines would be 250-270ft tall, and would come in groups of five to more than 60. In a flat rural setting these monsters would dominate and utterly ruin our landscape, besides creating a noise nuisance and television interference over a wide area.

But perhaps we should tolerate a few such disadvantages in order to help in the reduction of greenhouse gases and other ill effects of power generation?

Consider this. The 13 turbines proposed for the fields outside my house would produce as much electricity in an average year as our local power station produces in seven hours, and the savings in emissions would be strictly proportional.

Of the 10-per-cent government target for energy production from "renewables" we understand that six per cent is notionally allocated to wind energy. To achieve this target would require about 17,500 turbines in the UK.

There are far more effective ways of reducing hydrocarbon consumption and emissions - turbines at sea, tidal flow power generation, and more effective campaigns to reduce energy consumption.