The wind energy industry has been growing at nearly 30 percent per year for the last decade. The heavy push for more green energy has created a gold rush of sorts...which means buyer beware ...

With all the supposed truths out there about global warming, here's one that doesn't get reported very often. Europe isn't the climate-change champion that its leaders, and their American apologists, would have you believe.........European policy makers have plenty of motivation to goad Washington into going along with their approach before too many people realize it isn't working. At a summit in March, EU national leaders dramatically raised the stakes by pledging a 20% cut in CO2 emissions by 2020. That's a real laugher considering their scant chances of meeting their Kyoto commitment of 8% by 2012. Their move is best seen as a bluff intended to pressure the U.S. into the game. Here in Europe, the grand gesture is always the most appealing play.

Dick Keane recently raised the very important question as to what happens when the wind drops and wind turbines are no longer able to make a contribution to the national grid (Letters, August 6). He suggested other, more suitable, ways to use wind power, which do not require a constant output of electricity. It was disappointing, therefore, to read in Emmet Egan's letter, on behalf of the Irish Wind Energy Association, that the Irish solution to the problem is to pass the buck to Eirgrid, because it has the spare capacity to cope when the wind drops. Is the Irish wind industry not making any attempt at all to look at other alternatives for using the output from their wind farms? It was consoling to read in your business pages that Eirgrid has the power to meet winter peak demand, even if the wind drops as we are in the middle of cooking the Christmas dinner.

But gradually the realization dawned that wind power is not all it had been cracked up to be by Al Gore-style environmentalists, its most obvious drawback of course being that wind is so unreliable. This creates three separate but related problems. First, turbines produce only a fraction of their "installed capacity", so the amount of power they actually provide is derisory. ...Second, so unpredictable are the instances when the wind blows at sufficient strength that conventional power stations must be kept permanently running, ...The third problem, thanks to this unpredictability, is that the more a country comes to rely on wind energy, the more it risks destabilizing its grid through sudden surges or drops in the energy from its turbines.

Airtricity states that all its output goes onto the national grid (Letters, July 30) but fails to mention that this power is about as useful to the grid as a spare groom is to a wedding. Unlike water from your tap, electricity cannot be stored and must be generated exactly to meet demand minute by minute. Unfortunately, the wind does not blow on command. Its volativity, unreliability and unpredictability make it a nightmare in balancing supply and demand on any power grid. In fact, at many times of peak demand, when wind energy could be useful, it is typically not available......However, the overwhelming drawback of wind energy is the need to have conventional power plants on permanent stand-by, fully manned and belching out CO2, ready to kick in when the wind stops.

Wind farm projects are growing like mushrooms after a rainy day, but the air is turbulent in the wind industry. Industrial wind farms are not as nice and green as promoters want us to believe. Like an opponent puts it : "There is more here than immediately meets the eye with industrial wind generators, and often the devil is in the details."

These figures are impressive but quite meaningless. The reality is that because output is so critically dependent on wind speed the overall output is only about 25pc of capacity and, on average, two thirds of this is wasted because it is generated when the power is not needed. With the wind at their back Airtricity will be lucky to power 10pc of the number of homes stated. This level of return simply does justify the environmental degradation caused by wind farms or the huge investment of resources involved.

Is it right that a small number of people should make substantial financial gain from development that impacts so greatly on their neighbours and the surrounding landscape? Is it right that the Council should permit it? I think not, but your readers should judge for themselves as it is very likely that this type of development will be before the planning department very soon again.

In Provence's Valee des Baux, where we live when not at home in Moray, wind farms are forbidden. Being France's most popular southern tourist destination, there is a consensus in Les Baux that any development likely to jeopardise the area's outstanding beauty must be banned. Similarly, Moray's future as a truly unique tourist destination in Scotland, and ultimately in Europe, will depend on how well it protects its own unique landscape.

The more I learn about renewable energy, the more I am convinced that the answer is not blowing in the wind. Some obvious drawbacks of wind turbines include unsightliness, intermittent availability, unreliability, bird and bat kills. A less obvious and downside is the fact that, because output is highly dependent on wind speed, the average overall output is only 25% to 30% of nominal capacity - and much of this is wasted because the wind just blows when it blows, whether the power is needed or not. There is no effective way of storing electricity. However, the overwhelming disadvantage of wind power is the need to have back-up generating capacity on permanent stand-by when there's little or no wind.

In Ireland we too have wind farms, but they are always located away from local habitations. Wales should follow Ireland's lead and not let big business bully small communities into accepting eyesores that are far worse than the slag heaps that dotted the upper Afan valley up to the late '60s.

The potential for growth, most analysts argue, is clear. But bottlenecks and political setbacks, not to mention technological glitches, will create many bumps in the road ahead. Indeed, fears that the most euphoric investors were overlooking such obstacles seem to have contributed to a sharp fall in clean-energy stocks earlier this year-although they have since recovered much of the lost ground. Such jitters caused several green-energy firms to cancel planned flotations. “There’s legitimate debate about a couple of segments,” says Keith Raab, boss of Cleantech Venture Network. In some instances, valuations accorded to firms with no profits-and little chance of making any soon-were reminiscent of the excesses of the dotcom bubble. As Douglas Lloyd, of Venture Business Research, puts it, “There’s too much money chasing too few opportunities. How is it possible that this many solar companies are going to succeed? They’re not.”

The plight of these magnificent birds is probably "small change", given the world's present predicaments, but in my book at least, "progress" must not be allowed to fly in the face of conservation. I wonder if anyone will listen....

Renewable energy policy is now at a critical conjuncture; compliance to the directive is the responsibility of individual governments, but this can only be achieved by the EU setting uniform, realistic and non-quantifiable objectives. Forcing countries to achieve targets may lead to investment in inefficient projects and eventual state involvement and protection of these projects.

Most shocking of all is new evidence that the need to switch on and off base load fossil fuel power plants, to provide back up for unreliable wind turbines, actually gives off more carbon emissions than keeping them running continuously, thus negating any carbon savings from wind. Alas, only when our governments have allowed thousands more turbines to disfigure Britain’s countryside, not least by their grotesque bending of the planning rules, will the futility of the ‘great Wind Scam’ finally be recognised.

On energy specifics, Europe's paper commitment to Kyoto greenhouse gas limits pushes so-called renewables like wind, solar, and bio-fuels. These are all unsuitable for large scale energy production despite heavy subsidies, and even then rarely economically viable. And since the construction of wind-power generators consumes more energy than they produce over time, they become tools of energy storage that leave a massive, disruptive "footprint" on the landscape.