Looking with interest at recent talk of making wind turbines available at
B&Q etc., exempting them from Planning restraints and making Govt. grants
available, made me wonder if they were really suitable for all parts of the
UK and if people were going to be properly advised before they rush headlong
into buying them. (In case anyone gets the wrong impression, I should add
that I'm an advocate of any effective measure that can reduce out dependence
on fossil fuels)

We've had some indications that the payback period may be 10 years or so
(with a projected life of the unit of around the same!), although the
capital cost is bound to fall as demand increases and the Govt. grants make
a difference, but I'm more interested to find out if anyone has looked at
the windspeeds over the UK to work out where the thresholds are for domestic
units to become viable.

Where I am now (SW Essex) is markedly less breezy, throughout the whole
year, than lowland Co. Durham where I lived previously, with far more calm
days here than I ever experienced before, so I'm surmising that any turbine
I bought would lie idle for much more time here than it would there.
Conversely, I'd assume that, with the stronger sunshine throughout the year,
I would get more benefit here from solar panels and photovoltaic cells, and
the strength of the sunlight and reduced cloudiness would outweigh the
shorter day lengths in the south in summer.

As things stand, I can see the more affluent south rushing out to buy far
more turbines than elsewhere, thinking they were doing right by the planet,
when in fact the overall benefit was nowhere near as marked as they thought
it would be. Wouldn't the Govt. be better off focussing any grants to the
areas better suited to the various technologies that are available and
provide the public with some guidance *before* B&Q et al start cashing-in?

Just a thought.

- Tom
Blackmore, SW Essex.