Figures from Ofgem for Cefn Croes, from March to September 2005, say the 39 wind turbines gave an overall output of 14 megawatts. The grounds given for planning approval said output would be bigger than 50 megawatts.

Tony Blair, before Christmas 2005, admitted that wind power was not effective in the fight against global warming. Think on it.

Politicians are instinctively uncomfortable with the long view. They tend to think in much shorter spans that coincide with the spaces between elections. So, meeting the demand in many energy company boardrooms for greater strategic clarity is not going to be easy.

But the variable and unpredictable power rate of the wind disqualifies it for either system load following or the continuous full load operation required to contribute to the national base load.

SO 52% of the people in the BBC survey preferred renewables to other sources of energy. This is not much of a surprise if renewables were offered on an "either-or" basis.

This landscape is very precious. However, the News & Star supported windfarms, saying Whinash was in the wrong place – so where is the right place?

None of the renewables is anywhere close to being a potential alternative and it has been admitted by Scottish Renewables that "wind power will not form the base load for electricity". Many people, including BBC interviewers and researchers, have been misled by the false claims of wind power companies.

It is true that alternative energy sources such as wind power have a limited role to play in meeting Britain’s energy needs. But they will only ever have a small role, and if the cost is scarring the increasingly threatened landscape, they should be rejected and other green and more efficient forms, including nuclear power, should prevail.

By excluding from council business any councillor who can be considered to have a "prejudicial interest", the code is now being widely used to silence councillors who wish to speak on behalf of the communities they represent.

We are constantly hearing news which further illustrates what a scam wind turbine industry is.

While these claims provide amusement for most of us, the worry is that those in power tend to be the only ones who believe them.

Equally undemocratic is the revolution in local government brought about by the rules from Mr Prescott which allow "monitoring officers" to exclude any councillor from debates in which they are deemed to have a "prejudicial interest". This includes any councillor who has previously expressed any view on the issue, or even who can be shown to have discussed it with members of the public before it comes up for debate.

He says "Winston Churchill once said that we in England have a countryside worth dying for. And I'd be damn well wiling to do just that, to stop the turbines."

The proposed site, complete with computer graphics showing the turbines and towers, showed a pretty rural setting changed to a scene from Star Wars.

But can we respectfully suggest that anyone involved in a decision to put 236 turbines, each 540ft tall, nine miles offshore here, might like to assess the visual impact first.

What a high price to pay for a technology whose benefits remain in so much doubt.

Editor's Note: Please refer to 'Blow for wind farm protesters' 1/21/06 available in NWW's news section.

Anyone who thinks that wind factories are environmentally friendly should Google "Cefn Croes Photo Gallery", to see 100 chilling pictures showing how many miles of unspoiled Welsh countryside were disfigured to create the largest industrial site in Britain: all to "save" annually less than a quarter of the CO2 emissions from a single jumbo jet.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' report to which they refer is clear on these points. Their chief economist, in summation of the results, says: "Our survey shows a clear majority who find that a windfarm nearby suppresses house prices."

Editor's Note: The report is available via the link below.

His [Dr. Charles Warren] study has little relevance to the debate on wind farms, and it is unhelpful for him to offer up what appears to be disingenuous research.