i think its stupid, people arguing against wind turbines. At the moment if we carry on the way we do, unless we all get cancer and slowly die from hideous pain, we are all going to die of serious flooding and all the other problems global warming is facing. If you want to sit in the dark when the oil and coal runs out thats fine. But no one seems to have a problem with dumping stuff in the sea, so i don't see a problem putting a wind turbine in regardless, if its going to mean i get to see 50 thats fine.

sammie, wiltshire,

what about the massive costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations and radioactive pollution, parts of the north coast of Scotland are still radioactive long after Dounreay was closed. What about Chernoble and Three mile island. what would happen if Al Queda dive bombed a nuclear power station. Give me pure natural wind power any time

D..Jackson, Wincanton, England

You have to use a fair amount of energy to create a wind turbine, and once built, transported and assembled, using more energy the turbine has to squeeze as much energy as it can out of the wind, in order to make it a good investment, in terms of energy. The longer it lasts the more environmentally friendly.

So why on earth are they putting them in seawater? Seems like a load of smoke and mirrors to me, a win-win situation for the chaps behind this, they don't have to push against locals to put up their wind farms, but they seem to be doing something ecologically friendly. I agree with the delightful Mrs Harvey, hopefully people will soon stop seeing the word nuclear as synonymous with disaster.

Oh and is it too much to ask that people stop using the word 'we' so often, I personally have never over exploited the North sea oil reserves.

Tristan Holmes, Plymouth,

I take it mrs Harvey won't mind the first new nuclear power station going up in her town then! I'll take the nice windy things, thank you.

ciaran, belfast,

Would someone like to mention to Mrs C Harvey that the proposal is for 'offshore' windfam developement meaning the 'countryside' would not be 'devastated' with wind turbines.

Simon Morgan, Cardiff, UK

I'm in favour. At last the Government has woken up to Britain's huge potential for wind power. Which would you prefer - wind turbines on the horizon or slipping towards climate chaos?

Peter Henshaw, Sherborne, Dorset

Since wind turbines have to backed by firm generators for when the wind does not blow, when it blows too much or too little I am reminded of the quote just two weeks ago from Energy Minister Malcolm Wickes.
In a BBC interview on Newsnight, 19 November 2007:
“ We will not be able to give people the electricity and the power they need just simply by some energy efficiency and some windmills”
- How true!
Lets wait for the nuclear announcement and hope we have not devastated our countryside with wind turbines by then!

Mrs C Harvey, Tiverton,

We need to replace gas and oil. The North Sea (where we used to be self sufficient on oil and gas) has seen output crash by 50% because we've over exploited them... one recent quote I heard from some ministry official was "we've got almost half what we had to start with" - so in 30 years all the easy, cheap stuff is gone, so given rapid growth we have less than 20 years of oil/gas left. That's about 50% of the energy we use gone! 25% is nuclear, and 20% coal... and people want us to get rid of both of those. So what's left???
The ignorance of some people about energy supply/security is staggering...
there's a lot of idiots on here who can't think beyond the issue of some white dots 5-20 miles out to sea spoiling their view!

mark smith, bracknell,

The government's figures didn't look right, so I played with them a little.

The electricity consumption of domestic sector in 2005 was 116,811GWh -- equivalent to 29% of power supplied in 2005, not half as stated in the article. Proposed new off-shore wind farm capacity, 33GW, produces 115,632GWh.

They've used a 40% load factor -- it's too high. The International Energy Agency's report on "Off-shore Wind Experiences" states the off-shore load factor isn't as great. The BERR's figure for off-shore load factor is 35%. With this, the offshore output is 101,178GWh -- not current domestic electricity consumption, and certainly not half of all power consumption!!

I think that they're going to have a hell of a problem meeting this target because their idea comes-up short on the load factor. Also it's not clear where they'll get 5,000 5MW (or 6,250 if we average out a 4MW) wind turbines from as most of the other industrial nations are already proposing to expand wind.

Paul Mobbs, Banbury, UK

The sitting room of my flat looks straight out on the 25 turbines of the recently constructed Burbo windfarm in Liverpool Bay, with an alleged capacity to provide electricity for 75,000 homes.
You can't fail to notice quickly that much of the time there is either too little or too much wind for effective operation.
Meanwhile the water surrounding each turbine mast rises and falls approximately 5 metres twice daily - and presumably will continue to do so as long as the earth has its moon. Surely water turbines sunk to a depth just above the sea bed (to avoid silting up) capturing the energy of the tides are what Britain with its 18,838 kms of coastline should be considering.

M Lumley, Wallasey, Wirral,

It's all very well proposing we will exceed Denmark in installed wind power capacity but it would be worth studying the evidence. Denmark has one of the highest electricity prices in Europe and judging by both EU and IEA statistics the carbon emissions of Denmark and other countries that have embraced wind power are higher per capita than the U.K. despite their ostensibly 'Green' credentials. In other words I see no evidence that high levels of wind power reduce carbon emissions and lots of evidence the subsidies increase the cost to the consumer of electricity. For reducing the carbon emissions and stable electricity prices we will have to look elsewhere.

Alan Dixon, Chinnor,

As someone working in the electricity generation industry, nobody seesm to understand the diffciulties of actually building these offshore installations. You might have heard about the Snohvit project for oil and gas in the Barents Sea - it is all subsea. Why? because the cost of building and servicing the offshore rigs is so prohibitive and difficult in winter seas. I back the use of offshore wind, but not to the detriment of everything else. What I find difficult to grasp is the frequency in which we have campaigners for more ecological friendly modes for living who have little problem flying vast distances to conferences about these topics (Bali anyone?) when they should be teleconferencing, and how few lead abstemious lives installing electricity meters and reducing space heating in their offices and homes. Hypocrisy is too common a feature of such people. We need to cut our unnecessary energy consumption - and we could reduce it markedly with little or no adverse effect.

John, Knutsford,

It's all very well saving the planet but what about the holiday-home owners and retired incomers living in Scotland? Has anyone thought about how it'll affect them? Jobs for locals is one thing but think of the disturbance during construction, it might last weeks!
What if it all goes wrong? It's not like we can just pull them down and return the seas to their previous state.

CB, Isle Of Skye, Scotland

The lunatics have really taken over the asylum now! As pointed out by others this is a con and a fraud that, if it is allowed to proceed, will be paid for by generations to come in huge bills and the despoilation of our country and its coastlines.
Presumably some other part of government will soon begin to offer subsidies for people to avoid flying by holidaying in the UK only to find that all the family holiday resorts, country and coastal, have closed down because their amenities have been destroyed by these wind farms.
Sheer folly and total waste.

Philip Collings, Wallingford, Oxon, UK

It is exactly wrong to say uranium is "not exactly abundant". The whole world's petroleum burn rate is 300,000 uranium-tonne-equivalents per year. Australia's "economically demonstrated resources" of uranium have, this year, been increasing at a rate of 270,000 tonnes per year.

Natural gas costs $4 million per uranium-tonne-equivalent; a tonne of the real thing costs only $240,000. The tax on that four million is what the UK government has its eye on. Enough offshore wind turbines to supply one-thirds of the electricity needs of every home in Britain means new gas plant to supply the other two-thirds. The turbines are a fig leaf for gas.

G.R.L. Cowan, Cobourg, Canada/Ontario

Couple the wind farms with the compression and storages technologies being developed by General Compression in the US and it should be possible to eliminate the fossil fuel contingent entirely and provide all of the energy needs of Britain from wind.

tom moriarty, Glastonbury, CT/USA

It is exactly wrong to say uranium is "not exactly abundant". The whole world's petroleum burn rate is 300,000 uranium-tonne-equivalents per year. Australia's "economically demonstrated resources" of uranium have, this year, been increasing at a rate of 270,000 tonnes per year.

Natural gas costs $4 million per uranium-tonne-equivalent; a tonne of the real thing costs only $240,000. The tax on that four million is what the UK government has its eye on. Enough offshore wind turbines to supply one-thirds of the electricity needs of every home in Britain means new gas plant to supply the other two-thirds. The turbines are a fig leaf for gas.

G.R.L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan, Cobourg, Canada/Ontario

I conclude that our nation is run by 'Mad Mullah's' indoctrinated in the new world religion, Global Warming: which does not exist, except in the brains of those who would benefit, financially, from its existence!
Furthermore, there is not a single wind farm, anywhere in the world, that has ever produced the amount of energy claimed by the manufacturer. Indeed, some show a shortfall of up to 40% of the declared output.
Moderation, and balance in all things!

Desmond, Barnstaple, Devon

It seems placing wind generators in the ocean would be a security risk. God forbid England ever goes back to war, but placing wind generators in the ocean would seem to be a very easy way for the enemy to destroy a good portion of England's power. Placing AA guns around them would be easier (i assume) on land. I love the idea of ocean based wind generators, but I just can't help but to worry about the security factor.

Scott, James Island,

The Government of the day always takes the soft option especially when they won't be around to suffer the consequences. Wind power does not provide a solution as the energy produced is not constant and the "industrial farms" spoil the visual benefits of a beautiful coastline. Why not put the money into wave and tidal power? This approach at least gives twice daily electricity.

Paul Swindon (Not on the Coast)

Paul Richardson, Swindon, WILTS

Conventional methods of generating electricity (fossil fuelled), rely heavily on cost effectiveness based on a high output per generator over its working life.
Bearing in mind it would be necessary to have conventional capacity in reserve at least equal to that produced by any wind energy scheme of significant size, then the downtime of the reserve would apparently nullify the economic benefits of any gains from said scheme?

John , Dolgellau, Wales

I agree completely with Andrew Mackay but there's another issue which in this country we seem to have lost sight of and that is of course that not one of these turbines will be built by a UK company.

Why aren't we investing in this and other renewables technologies properly? Everyone else is.

Dick, Aberdeenshire,

Sir,
If the Government would take the brakes off microgeneration, the demand would significantly diminish.
However,the wind and tidal generation projects should be persued with all vigour, as allowing mere humans to fool with nuclear energy ,is tantamount to giving a monkey a gold watch.

Clive Burghard , LANCING, ENGLAND

Seriously, Steve, Visual Pollution? When's the last time "Visual Pollution" destroyed a stream, or body of water or caused cancer or let off radiation, or was stored in your body in some form? Harm the environment, save the view?

Chris, Fort Collins, USA / CO

Wind mills look amazing. say what you like about visual pollution this is a very good idea or if not a step in the right direction. imagine that... windmills where ever you look on the coast. it will be like the eon adverts

jim bob, maidstone, england

It never ceases to amaze me just how negative public opinion (or at least those interested enough to bother posting) is about what is all "good news". Sure, wind isn't going to solve the base load problem, but at least it's something positive. Even if it doesn't end up powering half of the UK's power requirements - isn't it enough to reduce our emissions on at least windy days? Why must you all hate the planet? <3

And to those who say they're a blight on the environment: would you seriously like a coal-fired power station in your backyard instead? Either way, I think that turbines look quite elegant.

Sam, unspecified,

Wind power is subsidised (via the REC system) So is EVERY other power generator in the UK. In 13 years time Oil is going to be largely unavailable - google peak oil if you don't believe it. Gas will be approaching peak and coal is dirty and the worst culprit for CO2 and the majority of cheap, clean coal will be gone then too. There will still be lots of coal left, it's called brown coal or lignite and it's low power and has lots of sulphur.
The choices we face are renewable power, dirty power or no power. Wind is currently the most economical of the renewables available. Solar should be economical by then too but it will not be much use to Britain (should be good for southern Europe though.
What we need is a European grid which can take the wind power from western europe, the solar power from southern europe and send it economically accross the continent.
When the lights go out people will be ready to take whatever steps are necessary.
Make the right choice.

Andrew, Dublin, Ireland

what would people prefer? Visual pollution, or living without electricity. This is not about Climate change alone. Oil is past peak, Gas is very close to peak, uranium is not exactly abundant, coal anyone? The only way we will have enough energy to have a lifestyle even close to the one we are used to now is become much more efficient and tap into energy flows, namely wind and solar.

bob, hastings,

Only a government full of people with no practical engineering experience could believe the smoke and mirrors trick that claims wind power will help us. Denmark has 20% of electricity from wind power but twice the per capita CO2 emissions of France and Switzerland that use mainly hydroplants and nuclear power.

I suspect that Mr Hutton would not know a turbo-alternator from a tea urn.

Paul , northwich, england

You have one article today saying that the Royal Navy will have no ships at sea due to cost cuts and this one saying up to 50% of our energy will be offshore. Well if I was a terrorist I know what I would be thinking!

Leo Jones, Holyhead, Wales

This is Robbing Peter to pay Paul. You get rid of one form of pollution and replace it with another ,ie Visual Pollution.

Steve, Bath,

Brilliant if it happens, but let's not confuse wind power with hot air. The green lobby needs to get its position straight; one minute it is arguing against nuclear power and for renewables, but then opposes specific schemes e.g. most windfarms because of the impact on bird migration, or the Severn barrage because of the impact on Salmon and harbour porpoises. Everything has a cost

Richard, Bexhill, UK

To overcome the issue of a reliable source of electricity excess electricity produced during the "wrong" time of the day can be stored by transforming it into hydrogen and then releasing the power when needed by using power cells.
Anybody knows how efficient this could be and if this can scale to the sizes needed to power a nation?

gianluca, london,

Wind energy would be uneconomic were it not for the Renewable Energy Certificates energy producers sell to industry, which is forced to forced to buy them in a market fiddled by the government. They account for about half the revenue. If all these turbines come on stream there will be such an excess of RECs that either the market will collapse or the government will disort it so much that industry will be harmed.

It is also worth noting that experience on the Continent of turbines has shown that they are not as reliable mechanically as was first thought. Some turbines, which should have a useful life of 20 years and more, are failing after 5 years.

Harry, Battle, East Sussex

This is totally insane. It will produce almost no usable electricity, at vast expense.

There is a real need for energy independence, and there is a real need for environmental improvement. But this is not it. It is a complete mystery. The environmental lobby seems to pick a goal (for instance, warming), then pick a course of action which will it admits will have almost no effect on it (eg Kyoto), and then abuse everyone who points this out.

In the present case, there may be a problem with energy independence, but even if you covered the whole country with windmills, you would not reduce the amount of fuel consumed by more than a nominal amount.

You want to do something about carbon, energy independence, air pollution, quality of life, the environment: cut down on cars. Especially diesels. Start walking or cycling. If you can't or won't tackle cars, just shut up. We do not need the country filled with useless bird killing monstrosities just to placate your crazed feelings.

Frederic, Paris, France

It never ceases to amaze me just how ignorant 99.9% of perfectly wise people are when it come to the subject of generating electricity. Aggregating random unreliable MWh from wind turbines over the course of a year may impress most people but it does not impress me!

In simplistic easy -to-understand-terms this is the 'wrong sort of electricity' because it is not continuous and will rarely, if ever, generate electricity at the right time ie when it is needed!

Fossil fuel power station supply electricity to the grid in a reliable way to meet demand. This electricity known as base load is the 'right kind of electricity' so that, when an engineer wants to express the capacity factor of this kind of plant he may say 85%. This means that, say, a 1000MW thermal plant will operate AT FULL CAPACITY for 85% of the year or 7,446GWh of 'firm' electricity.

A 1000MW wind farm may produce 3,000GWh of random mix of the wrong kind of electricity over same period.

Spot the difference!

Andrew H Mackay, Tain, Scotland