Yet another Devon village is to be ripped apart by power companies, no doubt supported by The Green Party. It was heartening to read that residents at Witheridge have already formed a campaign group and many farmers and landowners are refusing the big money offered by Nuon Renewables to "sell out" North Devon. They should be commended. However, I was concerned to read that Witheridge parish council hope to have a private meeting with Nuon Renewables! Apparently, they feel that if a meeting was held in public it could be "hijacked" by "opponents" ...

Few might guess, from the two-dimensional reporting of these plans in the media, just what a gamble with Europe's future we are undertaking - spending trillions of pounds for a highly dubious return, at a devastating cost to all our economies. The targets Britain will be legally committed to reach within 12 years fall under three main headings. Firstly, that 15 per cent of our energy should come from renewable sources such as wind (currently 1 per cent). Secondly, that 10 per cent of our transport fuel should be biofuels. Thirdly, that we accept a more draconian version of the "emissions trading scheme" that is already adding up to 12 per cent to our electricity bills. The most prominent proposal is that which will require Britain to build up to 20,000 more wind turbines, including the 7,000 offshore giants announced by the Government before Christmas. To build two turbines a day, nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower, is inconceivable. What is also never explained is their astronomic cost.

The decision by the Scottish Government to deny planning approval to the giant windfarm on Lewis should be applauded. It is the first glimmer of light in the whole tortuous debate on renewable energy. The previous Labour/Lib-Lab executive had no coherent strategy for wind energy, simply offering lucrative inducements to power companies and land-owners which led to a stampede to erect giant turbines. Hundreds of applications are still in the planning pipeline, many of them in wholly inappropriate locations which would threaten endangered flora and fauna and industrialise some of Scotland's most spectacular landscape. Worse still, by destroying deep peatland, as would have been the case on Lewis, these wind-farms would create more carbon emissions than they would ever save.

On Lewis the turbines will dominate the shores of many trout lochs, yet Lewis Wind Power's environmental survey makes no mention of the environmental impact on the lochs; it makes no reference to the existence of the lochs at all. The "green lobby" often use terms like "sustainable" to describe the industrial complex that Mr McIver hopes the Barvas Moor would become once the turbines are built. Industrialisation and the current sustainable lifestyle which has protected a unique ecosystem for thousands of years are incompatible, it is impossible for them to work hand in hand ...

If you thought the 2008 presidential race was shattering all records for windy rhetoric, it's nothing compared to the political eco-rhetoric being spun to US taxpayers -- to get them to cough up billions of dollars to fuel a renewable wind power industry boom sensible investors won't touch with a turbine's rotor blade. ...Wind power sounds a great European success story -- one to be echoed in the US, it seems, as 2008 is set to see wind power developments shatter records for the fourth consecutive year. However, a closer look at the European "success" story reveals that all is not quite as it seems. Wind seems to be blowing in the mind of the politically correct and those on the recent environmentalist bandwagon but the cost is going to be huge, no companies will plunge into it without massive government subsidies and, if actually built, power reliability will take a nosedive. ...The bottom line is that the renewables debate, and investment in it, is as much about ideology and political belief as it is about economics and environmental issues. When the real cost of turbine power as a major player toward our future power needs is assessed, the answer just ain't "blowing in the wind".

Once we were offered an easy way to help save the planet: ask an electricity provider to supply you with power from renewable sources and you would reduce carbon emissions and so tackle climate change. But doing the right thing has turned out to be more complicated. There are growing concerns that 'green tariffs' reduce carbon emissions by far less than promised - a point accepted even by government. Supporters still argue they are worthwhile because they boost demand for renewable energy in future. But even that is now being questioned: demand is already massively outstripping supply, leading providers to turn away big customers. ...But, surveying 12 tariffs offered by nine companies in 2006, the National Consumer Council (NCC) found many were not delivering the environmental benefits they claimed. Worryingly, even the better tariffs 'only reduce CO2 emissions by around 100kg a year - just 6 per cent of the average household's CO2 emissions', the NCC said. Since then, Ofgem, the energy regulator, and the government's Energy Saving Trust have launched consultations into accreditation schemes to reassure customers. ...Meanwhile, many campaigners are reserving judgment - afraid to deter consumers from doing something to help, but worried that if green tariffs are seen as a sham there could be a backlash.

Our crofters have had years to consider the "lucrative" income that we could "enjoy" if this wind farm were granted, and we have said no each time we were asked. Sixteen surveys or ballots have all yielded overwhelming opposition to this project, comprehensively backed up by more than 13,000 objections submitted to the government - with only 77 letters in support - hardly the "widespread support at both national and local level" which he claims this project has. We are not for sale, at any price. We are not the "needy" yokels that Mr Maciver claims, nor will we be bought by dangling "lucrative" carrots as bait to encourage us to capitulate. We most certainly do not share his views that building 181 giant turbines, digging miles of roads, drains and ditches, pylons, excavating five huge quarries (each up to a mile long) would be "managing the moorland to the benefit of our environment".

When the history of modern Britain comes to be written, one of the most catastrophic failures of successive governments will be seen to have been their grotesque mishandling of our national energy policy. ...around 2000, came two further twists to the tale. First it became clear to all the experts that, as North Sea gas ran out and the bulk of our most productive coal and nuclear power plants would reach the end of their lives after 2010, Britain would face a grave energy crisis. But also alarm over global warming had by now hit the top of the agenda. Politicians in London and Brussels had become hypnotised by Green fantasies about "carbon-free renewables" and shut their eyes to the real crisis that was now fast approaching. The nadir of this unreality was the 2003 Energy White Paper, which blethered on about wind turbines but made no attempt to address the gravity of Britain' s impending energy gap.

Yesterday's announcement that the Government has given the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power plants drew predictable howls of outrage from the green lobby. One minute they are complaining that the Government is not taking the threat of global warming seriously enough, the next they complain even louder when the Government takes the issue seriously and pledges to do something about it. There's just no pleasing some people. Let's make this absolutely plain for the seriously hard of thinking - nuclear power is the only proven and cost-effective way of producing the large amounts of electricity we need, without massively increasing carbon emissions.

In answer to my previous letter, Richard Tosswill (letters, December 28) raises an interesting and persistent point: if what I had to say about wind turbines were true, then there must be some extraordinary global delusion, affecting almost every government in the world. The short answer, Richard, is to ask why lemmings throw themselves over cliffs. I will try to give a more reasoned answer. Firstly, over the last 10 years or so, most governments have signed international agreements to reduce their carbon emissions. Wind energy is high on the list of means because, in Richard's own words, each wind turbine generates electricity without burning fossil fuels or emitting greenhouse gases. This has become the mantra of the "greens", to be trotted out whenever they are challenged. Governments see political advantage in fostering the growth of such a visible tribute to their green credentials. However, as accurate as Richard's description of a wind turbine is, the fact remains that they are of limited value.

The wind may be clean and free, but wind-generated electricity fed into the grid is neither because of the power station back-up required for such an unreliable source. Back-up is required because coal-fired stations cannot be rapidly adjusted to suit wind variation. Since there is no fossil displacement there are costs, monetary and in emissions. These costs are ignored in the claims of wind farm companies. Government supports in the form of the Renewable Obligation and the Climate Change Levy ensure wind farm electricity sells for less than other generation. These subsidies are paid for by the consumer and play a part in recent price increases.

When there is considerable debate over future financial prospects of an industry, it's hard to argue over the present value of an asset. But some Scottish & Southern Energy investors are bound to raise eyebrows over the €1.46 billion it's just paid for wind-farm operator Airtricity. After all, it costs roughly £1 million/MW to set up a modern windmill. Airtricity has 600 MW of assets built up and permission to build another 963 MW of assets. Which means that if Scottish & Southern had set up the mills on its own, it would have cost roughly £1.6 billion. In buying Airtricity, it's now likely to end up paying nearly £3 billion. Scottish & Southern has warned investors the deal won't enhance earnings until 2011. Scottish & Southern's problem is the scarcity value of wind-power assets as the EU's energy policy makers have set a renewable-energy target of 20 per cent of total supply by 2020. The UK has a self-imposed target of 10 per cent by 2010.

Surprisingly, the Government has yet to respond. Dr Ion admits her frustration: “The science on climate change is clear but people have forgotten that engineers have to apply that science. It’s all very well to say that we’ll have 20 per cent of our energy coming from wind power by 2020, but that’s useless if nobody’s done any studies on how that’s going to be delivered. If people continue to set unrealisable targets, Government policy will begin to lose credibility.” I have an idea: a year ago the Environment Agency fined four British companies £750,000 for breaking EU rules on carbon emissions trading. You can see where I’m heading . . .

Wind farms provoke negative reactions from two overlapping groups of people: those who believe the farms are ugly, and those who believe they do not make economic sense. The second lot will be asking themselves some serious questions this weekend with the news that Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) is to splash out more than £1bn for Irish wind farm group Airtricity. ...If wind farms do not make economic sense, then a multibillion-pound international delusion has taken hold.

Firstly , we are in favour of alternative sources of energy such as wind turbines. It is just that we do not want them desecrating a beautiful and tranquil part of our rural heritage when they could easily be placed elsewhere, especially offshore. Secondly, who "honestly" told Mr Waterson that it would "provide all the power needed for the opera season"?. ...The energy produced by the turbine will be sold to the National Grid and so will not actually be used by the opera house because they will have to buy energy back when they need it. Thus it could be located anywhere and not in a place which will damage the beauty of Sussex.

We all know that nimbyism is the placing of selfish individual wants before the common good. ...Or so the cliché goes, propagated unquestioningly by politicians and the press alike. This week Labour's official environmental lobby group Sera wheeled it out while complaining about what it believes is impeding the spread of wind turbine developments across the country. The problem was caused by "nimby councillors" who opposed planning permission, said Sera. ...The truth is that the values a nimby defends were, until very recently, those which most environmentally-minded people would support. In the face of this prejudice and propaganda, it takes courage to be a nimby. ...The qualities of a particular area will seem insignificant beside the fate of the earth. Set against big, sexy statistics concerning the future of mankind, the future of a moorland, a wood, some fields, a village, will seem puny. But it is not. It is in these places that a nation's soul resides; they are too important to be obliterated in a mood of emotion and anxiety for some nebulous, ill-defined national interest.

Wind farms are set to play a big part in national and regional targets for renewable energy production and last year Cumbria's councils produced the 62 page Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document. ...Meanwhile we urge planners seeking the best places to site wind farms in Cumbria to do plenty of background research. ...Such data should be evaluated as Cumbria performs the tricky balancing act of meeting renewable energy targets, safeguarding lives and health, and preserving our uniquely beautiful countryside.

I was one of the community councillors who asked to go on the wind farm trip in September. I went to see if it proved my thoughts that Shetland could not absorb the visual impact of the Viking Energy project. The simple answer is that it can't - the land mass in Shetland is too small. ...We were advised at this site that the carbon footprint during the construction had been 'massive'. ...

The vandalism of our beauty spots continues. I refer to Stirling Council's decision to shun its planning department's advice and support a wind farm at Craigengelt. Its 410ft turbines should make a splendid backdrop to the massive pylons planned from Stirling to Denny. Formerly known as the entrance to the Highlands, Stirling should in future be dubbed: "Gateway to the industrial belt."

Last week, amid the clouds of self-righteous humbug billowing out from Bali, Gordon Brown committed us to what I do not hesitate to call the maddest single decision ever made by British ministers. It was announced by John Hutton, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, that we are to build 7,000 giant offshore wind turbines round Britain's coast by 2020, to meet our EU target on renewable energy. It will be the largest concentration of such industrial monsters in the world, enough, claimed Mr Hutton, to power every home in the country. No matter that Mr Hutton's officials warned him in August it was not conceivable that we could achieve even a much lower target. So keen was Mr Brown that Britain should "lead Europe on climate change" that Mr Hutton was told to ignore his officials - and the media reported his claims without questioning whether such a megalomaniac project was remotely feasible. ...Nothing better illustrates the fatuity of windpower than the fact that Denmark, with the highest concentration of turbines in the world, must export more than 80 per cent of its wind-generated electricity to Norway, to prevent its grid being swamped when the wind is blowing, while remaining heavily reliant the rest of the time on power from Sweden and Germany. The Danes, who decided in 2002 to build no more turbines, have learnt their lesson.