Wind farms are a non-starter

I would plump every time to live near a nuclear power station, as opposed to wind turbines

I read your reader survey with astonishment. Maybe the years have addled my brain in some way (I am now a retired member of the Mechanicals), but as a means of contributing to a requirement for a reliable 24/7 electricity supply to the nation, surely wind farms are a complete non-starter. The principle was abandoned 200 years ago by our forefathers, when something more reliable to grind corn or drain fens, namely steam and then electricity, became available.

Without substantial subsidies, both in terms of tax incentives and 'feed-in' tariffs which add to all our electricity bills, the industry would cease to exist, as it has just become a method of taking money from poor consumers and handing it to rich landowners.

As for offshore turbines - as someone who spent much of his career trying to keep production machinery working efficiently indoors and miles from the sea, I seriously question the reliability and realistic life-cycle of these machines, which of course have no 'resident' maintenance team, unlike (for instance) offshore oil rigs.

Finally - as someone who spent a couple of years as a young engineer working at Hinkley Point 'A' I would plump every time to live near a nuclear power station, as opposed to near the hundred or so wind turbines which would be required to produce the same (theoretical) output!

David Simmons, Cambridge

Next letter: Wind is a waste