Mr Davies described how the problem is not only the turbines, but the need for two vast substations and 100 miles of steel pylons, up to 150ft high, to carry the electricity into Shropshire to connect with the National Grid. But although he may have spoken eloquently about the visual and social impact of this project, he failed to spell out its nonsensical economic implications.

Many of us here in Wales, UK, have read the article on "Wind Turbines" in your paper on 14-6-07. It has been posted about by e mail. We in Wales UK are planning a national ANTI Wind Turbine demonstration on July 8th. This horrendous industry will never ever halt global climate change it will only enrich its developers via the obscene level of subsidies being paid in Europe. Are there such massive subsidies your side of the Atlantic?

environmental pressure groups adamantly oppose fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. Renewable energy – from wind turbines, or little solar panels on huts – is the future for Third World countries, they insist.

Their prescription is totally inadequate for any modern society, India’s Barun Mitra points out. It would also mean sacrificing hundreds of thousands of acres of scenic and wildlife lands to gargantuan windmills that slice and dice birds and bats by the thousands.

If you thought your monthly utility bills were high now, just wait. According to the nonpartisan Little Hoover Commission's report, "Rewiring California," ratepayers face soaring electrical bills because of the move toward adding more solar and wind energy to the power grid.

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.

The tax-dodging Treasury secretary and the chief of the unconstitutional department of energy announced more than half of a billion dollars in unconstitutional government handouts to energy companies this week, most of which will go toward expensive, inefficient wind power through a foreign-owned company. And this is just the "first round." Under the guise of "creating jobs" and "clean energy," this portion of the $54 billion allocated for energy in the "stimulus package" is expected to eventually siphon more than $3 billion from the productive economy - killing a great number of jobs in the process.

Watermelons - people who are "green on the outside and Red on the inside" - refuse to believe renewable-energy technologies may never be capable of replacing oil and natural gas, but it doesn't stop them from sowing their fantasy seeds. ...Even with massive subsidies, renewables can't come close to competing with oil and gas; without them, they'd be dead in the water. Though wind and solar have been on the "subsidy take" for decades, the Journal notes, they produce less than 1 percent of America's electricity; nuclear, meanwhile, generates 20 percent but is subsidized 15 times less. Believing all renewables, let alone just wind, will produce 20 percent of America's power anytime soon requires a leap of faith only fools would attempt.

Under the act, municipal governments would be stripped of their roles in approving power projects such as industrial wind turbine "farms." This would override moratoria on wind farm construction imposed in several Ontario municipalities, including South Algonquin and Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards townships in our area. It is hard to see the justification for such a hard-line measure, or for Premier Dalton McGuinty's wholesale labelling of those who have legitimate concerns about wind turbines in their areas as NIMBYS - the increasingly shopworn acronym for "not in my back yard."

Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts have introduced The American Clean Energy and Security Act. ...Michigan Democrat John Dingell dared to utter the truth on April 24. "Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax, and a great big one." How big? $646 billion between 2012-2019, states President Obama's budget.

The Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House by a 219-to-212 margin in late June seeks to punitively tax America's electric utilities that rely on energy sources now contributing 90% of our current electricity (or 71%, if you want to leave out nuclear). These taxes will be used to subsidize the 9% of renewable contributors (really only 3% when you leave out hydro). In other words, Waxman-Markey is betting the future of U.S. electricity production on sources that now contribute 3% of the total.

Further to your article, Battle of the blades (November 24), no matter how many turbines are built, not one fossil-fuelled power station will close. The Scottish people have been sold a lie; wind energy just doesn't do what we are being told it will do. Owing to the very fickle nature of wind and the fact that it will only produce electricity when winds blow between roughly 5-50mph, we still need our base-load power stations to click in, when required. Wind turbines will only work up to about 30% of the time, yet our base-load stations will still have to run continuously, but at an inefficient level, to support wind power.

As wind farms show, we must be more sceptical about quack remedies peddled in the name of environmentalism. An independent study declared at the weekend that most wind farms in England are a waste of space. Government targets for turbines assume that they will operate at 30% of capacity. Most work well below that, because their sites are insufficiently windy..... The study is unsurprising to those of us who have believed all along that turbine mania reflects an unholy alliance between ambitious manufacturers, greedy landowners and credulous ministers - happy to lavish extravagant subsidies on doubtful technology which burnishes their green credentials without costing anybody save the taxpayer, who exists to be stuffed.

As a writer, I am deeply indebted to the Northeast Kingdom, from which I’ve drawn inspiration for almost 50 years: its woods, fields, ponds, hills, its people, its other creatures. Like most of my neighbors, I favor conservation and renewable energy. The fear of climate change has been with me for many years, ever since I felt the early, subtle signs of it. But I do not support the proposed UPC industrial wind facility.

For many years security of supply has taken a back seat in energy policy. We have been more concerned with price and, latterly, reducing emissions. ...security of energy supply must also be put back on the agenda with an equal priority. That means developing a mix of renewable generating forms including wave, hydro and biomass, which have more predictable output than wind turbines.

Has anyone ever interviewed any of these protesters, asking for their reason to take time off work and travel to these sites to protest? And in spite of these existing +13,000 German wind turbines, not one single coal-fired power plant became shut down. ...George Smitherman's attitude and gag-order, abrogating municipal councils' democratic mandate to act in the best interest of all citizens remains despicable!

I don't have the benefit of a $58 million marketing campaign, but I'm willing to throw down my own five-point proposal, culled from years of writing about, researching and discussing the issue with energy experts, including Pickens. My plan begins with the idea that energy is really about economics. The solutions, therefore, must make economic sense. That doesn't mean consumers won't have to pay more - we will. And providers must be able to make reasonable returns. Subsidies are fine to develop technology, but we can't sustain businesses that aren't profitable without them, which is why I'm skeptical of wind power.

I'm not condemning these projects because the information simply isn't available now to determine whether the greater good is to build them. But I do believe that to this point, they've done the absolute bare minimum to explain themselves to the community. Montana deserves better. And Montana can do better for itself.

Wind power and solar power are so risibly inefficient that the only way they can ever be economically viable is with lashings and lashings of taxpayer subsidy. Nuclear power would be much more effective but Huhne has effectively ruled it out. Why? Because in Huhne's bizarre Weltanschauung, it's OK for the taxpayer to subsidise low-carbon energy that doesn't work (wind, solar) but not low-carbon energy that does work (nuclear).

Now is the time for you to prove to the people of Wyoming if you really care about the scenic beauty of Wyoming. The wind farm rage is coming. I have been to your wind symposium in Laramie and to the task force meeting in Casper this past week. I have heard so much talk about sage grouse, and state taxes being imposed on a 100 percent tax subsidized industry that I feel Ill!

Last year, the legislature passed a bill to spend $50 million a year on renewable energy projects for the next five years. I voted for that bill. During the special session, the amount was bumped up by another $50 million. I voted against that addition, on the grounds that we shouldn't double the price tag of an untried program. ...They say if you do this job long enough, you're bound to make mistakes. I think voting for this cart-before-the-horse renewable energy bill is one of mine.