With the publication of the Friends of the Earth document "Wind Power 20 Myths Blown Away", fully endorsed by Minister Jane Davidson, I was highly amused at the very clever way it has been worded - and the way it has neatly avoided giving a full and balanced picture. It is a veritable symphony in spin. ...I am surprised that Davidson's advisers let her be a party to this biased "report". If we take just one of the twenty - No 17: Wind farms harm property prices. The FoE document quotes two reports saying they don't. Well, the planning inspector who turned down the appeal by Renewable Energy Systems against the council refusal for 10 wind turbines at Rhos Garn, Llandysul, thought differently. He referred to a property owner near the site and said: "I can well imagine that if this proposal was allowed, he may well have difficulty selling his property."

Despite repeated requests, no-one on the "pro" side will tell us how much electricity is generated by these devices when the wind fails to blow; the best answer we get is that they can be sited where the wind never does fail, but even if such an onshore site exists it is not claimed that the wind-force is consistent throughout the day. Secondly, we are told that they emit only 20dB of noise which, assuming it is true, may seem - and indeed is - trivial. But the term "dB" is widely misunderstood ...I would question the figure, as I have stood within earshot of just one of these things and "whisper" it did not; moreover, the sound of a "farmyard" full of the creatures can be readily imagined.

I have been told that Viking Energy intend to instigate a planning process in September. Environmental impact assessments have not yet been published and may not be (and need not be) until the day that planning application is submitted. This gives little or no time for public debate or consultations on these. This also says to me that VE have already made up their mind that the environmental consequences of the wind farm and cable are acceptable. Once the planning application is submitted, and the planning process underway, promises that "if the people of Shetland don't want this it won't go ahead" are empty because the final decision is taken in Edinburgh, not Shetland. I guess that VE's response to this will be that they have a mandate to instigate this process - I bet they won't test this in a referendum.

Shell says its withdrawal isn't an indictment of clean energy, and points to its on-going investment in wind energy in the U.S. But British newspapers take a more skeptical line. The Times of London called the departure a "huge blow" to Britain's ambitious plans to harness offshore wind to meet growing energy needs. ...Actually, Shell's departure raises the question-is it pulling out renewables in favor of good, old, pricey oil? Or is it just pulling out of the dysfunctional renewable-energy market in the U.K.? Britain has ambitious plans for clean energy, and theoretically plenty of renewable-energy resources, but has made little progress so far.

As I am Jane Davis, I hope you will allow me the time honoured right to reply to this gentleman's statements. Noise pollution from the Wind Farm 930 metres from our home has indeed caused us to abandon our home and rent a house 5 miles away. Not an easy decision to make when your home is on your farm. ...The Local Government Ombudsman has only yesterday decided that our situation needs proper investigation, with all facts available to all parties and this is to happen in the near future. She is however concerned that the planning condition for noise "put in place to protect local residents" and based on the industry standard ETSU-R-97, is "Vague, open to interpretation, immeasurable and thus unenforceable".

WHOOSH, whoosh, whoosh. Or should that be whump, whump, whump? I'm trying to imagine what life might be like living next door to a wind farm. A few weeks back I put an offer in on a house with splendid views of the Borders countryside. Then I found out a planning application is under consideration for eight 100ft turbines on a hill just a mile away from the dream cottage. Oh, the irony. Having waxed lyrical about renewable energy, there's no way I can object to turbines being put up. So why can't I get the opening sequence of Apocalypse Now out of my head? The slow, repetitive whoosh of helicopters has been translated from Vietnam to rural Roxburghshire. The main cause of the 'Nam flashbacks are the articles I've read about low-frequency noise.

It is a question of nature versus need, and livelihood versus landscape. The Scottish Government's rejection this week of plans for Europe's largest wind farm on Barvas Moor, on Lewis, has shown there are many shades of green. Only a few years ago, the merits of the Lewis Wind Power (LWP) scheme were trumpeted high and wide. ...Since then, however, environmentalism has come in for increasing questioning and paradoxes have been revealed. The rejection of LWP - to protect the fragile ecosystem of the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area - may be a taste of things to come. ..."Given the 'green on green' nature of the debate, opinion will doubtless remain divided over whether such a development would be a good, bad or indifferent development in Scotland."

Scottish Renewables (Letters April 24) persists in presenting wind-generated electricity as renewable. While the wind certainly is, the back-up need of windpower electricity isn't. Claims of saving CO2 emissions are just that: claims with no basis as fossil generation is not displaced. ...Wind farms are only built to access huge public and consumer subsidies and are only supported by misinformed environmentalists and politicians, and those who profit from them.

My home is downwind of the predominant wind direction from the Deeping St Nicholas wind farm. We have had to abandon our home as a place to live in as we were no longer able to sleep at home. The wind farm became operational in June 2006 and we suffered the same effects. It is becoming increasingly clear because of 'wind shear effects' no turbines should be erected on the eastern counties of England (Professor Fritz van den berg in Lyon at the International Wind Turbine Noise Conference2007.

In response to Scottish industry's concerns that its lights may go out, Britain's power industry had to admit it would not make one iota of difference as wind power is too unstable to be included in any calculations of how much power is needed to satisfy the country's needs - whether or not the wind is blowing our power stations will still burn the same amount of fossil fuel.

Likewise with these huge turbines we have to take into consideration all the effects they will have on the environment around them. This includes the roads, the foundations of the turbines, the converter station in the Kergord valley, the quarries and the shadows. The flickering shadow from these turbines when the sun is at a low ark of 20 degrees would be in the region of a quarter of a mile long. Up to now the huge destructive visual impact of this oversized proposal has been my main objection, however during the last few weeks my view has changed. ...However what has disturbed me more than anything is the sound of the turbines. This is not so much the actual decibels as the deep vibratory effect of the turning blades that seemed to penetrate my very being. Call me a wimp but I have not been able to spend much longer than an hour up there without feeling distressed, disorientated and nauseous.

So how is this relevant to the proposal (which thankfully Scottish ministers are "minded to refuse") to put 181 wind turbines and 88 miles of road network on the Lewis peatlands, an area afforded special protection under European law? The point is we need places like the Lewis peatlands, we need places where protection of nature is first priority, not just for the sake of wildlife, but for our own well being as a species. A staggering 800,000 hectares of Europe's land was converted to artificial surfaces between 1990 and 2000, a trend which has continued into this century and will no doubt continue into the future. Strict protection of the very best places for wildlife is therefore as high a priority as ever ...Any erosion of [protected areas'] status will spell disaster for our tentative efforts to live in better balance with the natural world.

You have got to admire the gall of Viking Energy. They say that the total area of peat disturbed by the wind farm will be 371 acres. This equates to about 2.4 acres per turbine. This is probably the correct area that is immediately affected by an individual wind turbine with regards to the concrete base, construction disturbance and access. But like all of Viking Energy's propaganda this is not the full story - and well we know it. For a forest of wind turbines to work effectively they have to be placed at a certain distance apart to avoid taking the wind out of each other's blades. For a 1.5MW turbine this is about 0.13 square km per MW installed. So for this proposed wind farm of 554MW, the land area disturbed will be at least 72 square km or 17,500 acres. Rather more than 371 acres!

I have read the applicants' press release and it does nothing more than describe all the benefits that will go to a business empire and farmers that have been persuaded to sign over their milk quotas in order to make cheese. The 34 farms from near and far will be paid a premium that, according to the press release, will average per year some £10.000-£30,000 each. The loss of value for the properties around these turbines will far exceed this figure with no compensation. Not one word is written about the residents around the village whose lives will be permanently blighted by the sight and sound of these money making monstrosities. ...I just do not agree with the way that private individuals can erect turbines for their own benefit without any consideration for the people who live around the area.

Scotland's vast expanses of peat bogs are regarded as our equivalent of the rainforests, and 17 per cent of the world's "blanket bog" is in this country. In all, Scottish peatlands cover some 1.9 million hectares and contain about two billion tons of carbon - roughly four times the UK's annual output - as well as "sucking in" carbon from the atmosphere. But the wild land on Lewis could be turned into an industrial landscape if the building of 176 turbines is granted approval, and other vital peatlands face the same fate. ...The Scottish Government has said it is "minded to refuse" the £500 million project but has yet to make a final decision. If it does go ahead, thousands of tonnes of peat would be excavated from the moor and huge amounts of concrete and aggregates poured into the ground to accommodate the foundations, roads and sub-stations. ..."In the headlong rush to cut carbon emissions, the EU and the UK government are throwing money into renewable energy without any coherent planning strategy to determine where wind farms should and shouldn't be built.

Analysis of these claims and adding up the alleged total number of homes supplied shows that well over one million homes (almost half the total in Scotland) should now be powered by wind-generated electricity. To fulfil the claimed emission reduction benefit, one of our fossil-fuelled power stations should have been closed by now - but it has not. ...The despoiling of our countryside, plus huge subsidies for wind turbines and consequent higher electricity costs, would seem to be for no benefit whatsoever, except, of course, to developers and landowners.

As someone who fought against the erection of three 95 metre high turbines at Loscar Farm, I must say that I am at a loss with the decision of the Rotherham Planning Committee to sanction the go-ahead. ...At the final planning meeting, one councillor declared that they knew all about global warming because they lived at Catcliffe and had suffered as a result of recent floods! Does that qualify them as an expert on the subject? Belief that the turbines will halt global warming is naive. They are built for the purpose of obtaining Government subsidies paid to developers.

"According to ScottishPower, the project will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 650,000 tonnes per year." Erecting a wind farm per se does not reduce emissions. A reduction in emissions only takes place when fossil generation is displaced by the wind generation. But because the wind is variable, intermittent, sometimes too strong for turbines and is largely unpredictable, back-up power-station generation is required continuously, irrespective of wind conditions, to ensure a reliable electricity supply. If the 180,000 homes mentioned were to rely only on the output of Whitelee wind farm, they would be unable to switch anything electrical on with any confidence that it would work because of the unreliable output from wind farms.

Without any public discussion Eamonn Ryan and the ESB unveiled plans to spend €22bn of our money on a madcap proposal which will seriously damage our ability to meet future energy needs. The plans include a massive increase in wind power which can never supply dependable power when needed. ...ESB Chief Padraic McManus said that he did not see nuclear power "being an issue" before 2035 thereby ending the nuclear debate promised by Minister Ryan, before it even started. So at a stroke this country has been effectively condemned to almost total dependence on imported fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.