Renewables the only answer

YOUR correspondent John Hatt is misinformed in his letter about windfarms ultimately increasing fuel poverty.

First, the recent 2050 carbon pathways calculator launched by the Department of Energy and Climate Change shows that relying on imported gas and oil (from the likes of Iran and Russia) will actually be more expensive than a mixture of renewables, nuclear power and gas using carbon capture.

This is before taking account of the cost of damage to the economy through climate change, estimated at up to £6,500 per person per year by 2050.

Second, it is precisely the campaigning of people like Mr Hatt which reduces the prospects of onshore wind applications and drives developers offshore, doubling the unit cost of electricity.

I quite agree with Mr Hatt that renewables should not be subsidised through energy bills.

However, his efforts are making a significant problem worse. If he were serious about fuel poverty, he should be campaigning for renewables, and asking that they be subsidised through general taxation instead of via energy bills.

Unfortunately, as with many anti-windfarm protestors, he appears to be starting from a position of not liking the look of windfarms and inventing reasons to justify his prejudice.

By the way, developers of gas, nuclear and coal-fired power stations are mostly foreign-owned too. So the call to patriotism isn’t going to work either.

David Farrar,

Swansfield Park Road,