"I am still waiting for any real world evidence that onshore wind substitutes for any significant amount of CO2 from thermal power stations. Other countries have long had huge wind capacities but have only managed very small equivalent substitution. But we still get ridiculously optimistic forecasts from the likes of Ed Miliband. Forecasts that are not supported by power companies and grid utilities with real world experience of wind power generation."

"Each wind farm needs the equivalent in fossil fuel back up to cope with variability. The Danish experiment has proven that having wind does not reduce Co2 since having wind Danish Co2 has increased. Because they have minimal access to gas they have needed to ramp coal fired generation up and down as required. It is also true that in their history the wind has never blown at the right time so the majority of power generated by wind has needed to be given away at zero price to Norway and Germany. So the result is that Denmark has burnt more coal, produced more Co2 and attained no personal benefit from having wind power in any way whatsoever in terms of energy generation. The only benefit to Denmark from wind is 30,000 Danish jobs sustained by the manufacture of them. There preference now is to burn straw, first because it provides base load which wind cannot and second its reliability and will keep the lights on whereas wind is not. The touchstone is, would you allow your child to undergo open heart surgery in a hospital powered by the wind. If having wind means burning more fossil fuel just so that you can have a good warm feeling and be prepared to ignore the absolute facts then good luck but burning more gas just to have wind doesnt conserve natural resources for our children or our childrens children which is what I thought conservation meant. What it does mean is that we consign our children to the stone age having to cook food over an open fire started by rubbing sticks together and I am sure that they will thank us for that. Milliband is a fruitcake politician, devoid of intellect and long on rhettoric and we all know that empty vessels make the most noise. The Ceo of E.ON has stated clearly that if the UK wants wind power then it will need to stump up a further £100 billion to provide fossil fuel back and then another £30 billion to install a new grid system that is able to cope with the extreme variability of wind. Remember also that as of now the maximum efficiency of installed wind power is about 15% of its maximum rated capacity, wind people only ever talk about rated capacity not actual efficiency. Off shore wind is far less because of the hostile environment, at least 25% of capacity is out of service either broken down or under repair and when the wind isnt blowing to counteract the effects of the hostile environment they reverse the flow of electricity to keep the turbines turbing otherwise the level of corrosion increases dramatically reducing their half life from ten years to as little as 7 so in effect if you spend £100 bn on off shore wind, you get to spend it again in 15 years and without fossil fuel they die anyway because how do you service something 3 miles high in the Atlantic with no diesel for the tug and crane? Wind farm enthusiasts need to take an object lesson in practicality rather than indulging in fantasy."