We remain unconvinced about the logic of wind power in Oxford following our investigation, published in this week’s newspaper, into the two wind turbines proposed for the outskirts of the city.

The principle of wind power is not at issue. In the right place and in significant quantities, wind turbines should play a role in the future generation of power for the United Kingdom.

The Government’s recent announcement that major wind-power fields can be developed at sea off our coastline is a welcome one. These nine designated areas could generate a quarter of the UK’s electricity needs. Situated at sea, they will not blight the landscape and they will generate more power than turbines located in sheltered inland areas.

As Reg Little’s feature points out, wind power is effectively subsidised through the renewable obligation system. Effectively, the electricity companies, and ultimately the consumer, pay more to ensure that the more expensive forms of renewable energy can be generated.

This does make sense. We have to seek cleaner ways of generating electricity and they are not necessarily cheaper.

The danger, however, is that in a free market situation business can take advantage of the effective subsidy and the beneficial political climate for green measures to pursue schemes in inappropriate areas that would otherwise be unprofitable.

That is our fear for Oxford.

Are Horspath and Cutteslowe Park appropriate sites for wind turbines in either environmental terms or in their potential to generate a sufficient amount of electricity?

For us, the case has not been made and the suspicion remains that there is an element of tokenism in the city council’s pursuit of wind power.

We have no argument with a financial subsidy for wind power but it should be combined with tough guidelines on what is an appropriate location in terms of local environment and wind speed.