Sir - Bernard Greenberg (Letters, April 25) rightly drew attention to the landscape damage from pylons and power-lines.

Hugh Jaeger's wind turbines would be far worse. Not only would be three times taller, but their (occasionally) whirling arms would draw the eye as pylons never could - not to mention that even more pylons will be needed to connect them to the grid.

For all the harm they would do to the landscape - despite Mr Jaeger's view they would somehow enhance it - they will produce no benefit at all.

Even out at sea turbines achieve less than 30 per cent efficiency. Inland we would be unlikely to see even 20 per cent. Further, the times when the wind is right (strong enough but not too strong) will rarely coincide with the times when there is most demand for power.

Because of these inefficiencies, not only will ordinary power stations still be running to back them up, but the turbines will always depend on massive subsidies, being extracted from us already through Government stealth taxes on electricity companies, the main reason your and my electricity bills are inflating.

And for what? We now know that for all the dodgy dossiers from Al Gore and his Oxford chapter at Climate XChange, there has been no global warming at all during all the time they have been telling us doom is imminent; even the right-on Hadley Centre admits there's no sign of it starting any time soon; and for the last 70 years global temperatures have gone down for as many years as they have gone up.

Green is still a synonym for gullible. Instead of throwing public money at wind farm manufacturers why not spend a tiny fraction of it on something useful like burying the unsightly power lines.

Michael Tyce, Waterstock