WITH reference to Mr John Dike's letter June 28 replying to mine the week before on the subject of wind turbines.

A farmer could bring in £45K a year with a 55kW turbine but this would be after finding the £270K required to purchase the turbine, assess the viability of and prepare the site, commission environmental impact assessment reports, connect to the grid, plus on going insurance and maintenance costs.

Landowners can enter contracts with clean energy companies who bear the cost of and erect turbines on their farm and they would receive a lesser amount.

I suggest that many medium to small farmers across the South West may favour this option.

I would also suggest that this is not greed. Remember the profits from feed in tariffs are wholly dependent on how much power is generated.

There will be those who benefit to a greater extent, admittedly, however the position is not as black and white as you state.

Contrary to Mr Dike's belief that a 55kW turbine can only supply one property - I know of a 55kW turbine on a farm which in this last month of June alone has produced 14,893 units (kW hours) which is enough to supply more than four homes for a year.

Or, put another way saved 6404 kg of CO2 which is the amount two cars produce in a year. Obviously the winter months are likely to see further gains, due to a higher probability of stronger, more sustained winds.

In many areas of the UK they are unable to connect any more turbines into the grid as it has reached capacity (unless the lines are upgraded).

If all they did was 'warm the cables' as Mr Dike states, then surely the DNO (District Network Operator) would allow as many to link in as anyone wanted to install?

There are electrical losses in any grid network (on average seven per cent of all energy in UK is lost in transmission) – it's irrelevant what type of plant generates them.

It is a function of transporting energy: the same as pumping gas or driving coal.

The important thing about distributed generation, of which the individual wind turbine would be an example, is that it would be generating near to the consumer.

Be that the owner of the turbine or the village across the way. So the overall losses in the system are less because the "transport" distance is less.

Bigger picture:

• Coal – is a finite resource, has to be mined, crushed, transported, burnt, gases cleaned and waste got rid of.

• Gas - we are hugely reliant on the Russians for this, has to be liquefied and currently transported (with associated environmental impact) in giant tankers around the Cape of Good Hope to get here.

• Nuclear - at present £80 billion spent on cleaning up nuclear plants to date with no end in sight.

• Fracking – could happen in your locality, possibly damaging our aquifers beyond repair for all of our collective lives.

I'm sure there will be further response as people's emotions run high on such issues. However, I believe that wind power, along with other renewable methods, has a vital part to play in supplying our future energy needs.

Our fossil fuel stocks are low and we are at increasing risk of being held to ransom by nations with plentiful supplies. The wind, sun and rain may not be perfectly convenient, but no-one else can stop them arriving in the UK.

PS: As in my last letter - I have done my homework!

Kate Wedge

Meadowside Road

Sandford