WITH reference to the letter in your newspaper dated Friday October 31 1997, I was very concerned to read that Dr Andrew Ross gives the impression that it is a straight choice between either windmills or nuclear power. Such an assumption requires a great leap of imagination.

Wind power will never replace nuclear power stations or in any way affect future government decisions to build any more.

According to the Department of Trade and Industry in a written answer in May 1994, in order for wind "turbines" to produce just 10 per cent of Britain's energy requirements it would require 30,000 such machines and they would need to cover some three-quarters of a million acres! Mind you, the number could be reduced by making them even higher - some 300 feet high!

Wind farms are inefficient and unreliable and only work when the wind blows, and if it is too strong they have to be shut down.

The 40 wind farms which we have in this country only produce an average of 60 Megawatts of power and on January 7 1997 the demand for electricity in the UK peeked at 53,000 Megawatts and demand is increasing! According to Windpower Monthly in February 1994 at Tarifa in Spain the wind turbines have killed 13 species of birds protected under European Law including the red kite, and in California 78 golden eagles were killed over a two-year period.

The only reason why wind farms are now being built is because PowerGen amongst others are receiving a huge subsidy from the Government to do so, (initiated by the previous Tory Government). And private landowners receive a substantial rent for each one built on their land.

In November 1993 even Windpower Monthly, the in-house magazine of the wind lobby, described Britain's wind industry as "an industry in search of fast bucks and never mind tomorrow".

Kevin Lloyd,

2 Stanley Drive,

Darwen.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.