But what happens when the wind doesn't blow?

There has been much discussion recently about relying on the French for technology on nuclear generation of electricity.

It seems that as Blair and Brown have dithered over the issue, they have left themselves with little option but to go "nuclear". Other options were considered, but it seems that there is now little option for them.

Most other technologies generate power by burning fuels and thereby adding to the global warming gases. The exceptions, of course, are the renewables - wind, water, wave/tide and solar, and also nuclear.

1) Water in requiring massive reservoirs and gravity, is really only suitable for a few locations in the UK. It is generally reliable, but may imply reduced power in times of drought, so even if there were more suitable sites, there would have to be extensive alternative ways of producing electricity.

2) Wave and tide would be more reliable, although there would have to be ways of storing the twice daily tidal energy. There are suitable sites, but arguably not enough to be the sole source of power. Their major problems are the effect on wild-life in the case of barrages, and in the relatively little power of waves which would require many miles around our coast.

3) Solar power is an expensive option, in installation, and of reduced value in our climate with frequent cloud cover, although modern technology does allow some power take up even in very cloudy conditions.

4) So, many ecologists have pinned their faith to wind turbines. The UK as an island has a long coastline and seems to have wind on shore on a regular basis, so many of the thousands of windmills could be sited off shore. The technology is simple and well-tested. Currently the Government's plan is to build 7,000 round the coast to meet our EU demand that 15% of our energy be from "renewables" by 2020.

So wind power is the answer, then?

Well not quite. Experience of continental operators, early into the technology while we were dithering, is that the turbines operate on average at about 27.5% of capacity, because there are many times when the wind is just not strong enough. So the 7,000 would not be enough. Moreover, since prices per unit of electricity are quoted as if working at full capacity, when allowance is made for 27% capacity,wind powered electricity is expensive. Christopher Booker, (Sunday Telegraph, 23rd March 2008), includes calculations from an industry expert that wind power would cost £8.8 million per megawatt, while the cost per megawatt for the latest nuclear station in Finland is only £1.7 million, that is less than a quarter.

So if six nuclear power stations were built instead of the 70,000 wind farms the operating cost would be about a quarter. Construction costs, using the latest Finnish example, would be £80 billion for the windmills, and under £17 billion for the nuclear stations.

The logic is inexorable. Other countries seem to have solved the problem of re-cycling and storage satisfactorily, and the clean technology of nuclear seems much cheaper.

The only problem is that The EU has decided to impose targets for "renewables" as well, and nuclear does not count towards this!

Of course, given that the wind does not blow consistently there would have to be be sufficient other capacity to come on stream when the wind was too gentle! We are in a mess!