If all the choices have to produce the same power output surely it comes down to a choice of two, fossil or nuclear. This is because a wind farm could never match the output of the other two.

P.S.  If every home in the UK were given one more low energy light bulb, one conventional power station could be decommissioned

After a few hours sleep thinking about it I am leaning towards Nuclear as being the most viable option.We visited the Nuclear pwer station at Wylfa Head on Anglesea a couple of years ago and I learnt more about nuclear power in the 2 hours that we were there than in the previous 30 years.

I totally understand the attractions of nuclear power, especially as greenhouse gases must be eliminated if we're to leave any sort of habitable planet for future generations. What bothers me is the waste, which is around for thousands and thousands of years. We don't know what damage it could do. It's irresponsible to assume that in the future someone will come up with a way to make it harmless.

And the by-products can also be made into bombs - what happens when a politically unstable country (or one which is unacceptable to the West) develops nuclear energy? Do we sit on our high horse and say: You can't have cheap/clean energy for your economy, you might blow us all up. But it's OK for us, because we're the goodies.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island... aren't these some kind of warning? We're supposed to learn from history, aren't we? Accidents happen. I wouldn't like Barlick to be another tragic statistic. What also irritates me is the amount of money and human effort/brain power that has been poured into developing nuclear energy. If the same huge amount had been allocated to developing renewable sources, I'm sure the boffins could have come up with a workable solution. This planet has abundant supplies of free sun, water and wind, not to mention animal and vegetable waste products.

Harnessing these was surely a simpler task than someone thinking up how to split an atom!

I don't have any definite answers to the original posting's question. I certainly think there should be a massive push to help us reduce the amount of energy we use. Issuing every household with 3 low energy lightbulbs could be cheaper than investing in another power plant.

If I have to nail my colours to the mast, seeing as I asked the question in the first place, I'd go for the wind farm, with a corresponding programme to reduce the nation's energy usage.

However, I'd dearly love to hear as many other views as possible. This is an issue with many facets and it's valuable to see it from evry angle.

Living in NZ where we are going big time into wind farms to generate power, I would think that 50 machines on the top of the Weets or where ever the wind blows strongest would supply all the needs of Barlick, Colne and Earby without polluting the atmosphere, plus in the long run it is the cheapest form of power generation.

I can hear the "do gooders" complaining immediately about the aesthetic look of wind machines on the horizon and the noise that they are supposed to make, but most of that is eyewash. In fact 50 wind machines spread across a hillside tend to give it character and here in NZ they are a tourist attraction.

No one complained about mill chimneys when they were built and there is no doubt about it they polluted the atmosphere.  Nuclear power stations may be the answer, but the waste problem is such that generations after we are gone will still be saddled with the waste.

We are now building wind farms close to hydro electric schemes in NZ as back up power supplies for when the dams are low and there is no chance of rain to replenish the water needed to generate power.   Good forward thinking

Remember  - in this day and age you can't live without electric power.  Wind farms are the next step for cheap electricity  -  someday we will harness the tides to give us all the power that we need (if you have a seaboard).

Aye Hatepe

50 windmills would take up alot of hill,look at the 5 just the other side of skipton(addingham),and would look bloody awful,IMHO!!

as for the mill chimneys,yes no-one complained when they were built,but then no-one complained about slavery and sending small boys up the chimneys then either.

i think the answer lies in whatever will be the cheapest for the populas as they(us) will decide which is the best/cheapest option regardless of pollution etc. as we don't really care what we've already done to the planet!

Anyone heard anymore about this proposed venture?