IN REPLY to Charles Mossman's letter (Crediton Courier October 31), he first of all takes me to task over saying that Den Brook would only generate a trivially small amount of electricity. Taking the average UK demand over the past 10 days, which have been remarkably mild for the time of year, Den Brook, on an average 4.5MW output, would have met a paltry 0.013 per cent of our needs or, to put it another way, it would take 69,000 wind turbines of the size proposed for Den Brook to have powered the UK. The problem with that would have been intermittency – i.e. there would be no electricity available on a calm day, such as Wednesday last week, and we would end up having to pay for them to be taken out of service when it's too windy, as we already have to, in millions of pounds, when the grid can't cope with surplus supply. As to the Sustainable Crediton meeting, I can neither confirm nor deny what was said, as I wasn't there. The reason I included the issue of wind, solar and AD in my proposed submission was because, and I quote from the meeting agenda, "Sustainable Crediton Energy Group has commissioned consultants to look into prospects and possibilities for wind, solar photovoltaics and anaerobic digestion technologies. "We want to set up a community benefit company to generate energy locally." That Sustainable Crediton has decided to drop wind and AD may well be the result of their consultants, DARE, announcing at the meeting that they had ruled out these technologies. As I have indicated before, the place for solar panels is on the roofs of buildings and not as proposed in North Tawton and other places, on good quality agricultural land. I am going to leave the issues of the morality or otherwise the cost of "renewable" subsidies to another time, other than to say that I am very pleased that Sustainable Crediton are committed to spending profits from this project, should it go ahead, to take local people out of fuel poverty. Roland Smith Pitt Court Nymet Rowland