Whatever it was that caused the startling volte face of the RSPB regarding wind farms we may never know. But, I must ask Mr Gregory (letters, April 8) to define “…perfectly reasonable wind power proposals”.

All those machines, 3,330mw of them, feed into the distribution or the transmission system.

In order to accommodate the vagarious fluctuations of their output it is essential to run ‘spinning reserve’ on the system.

A coal-fired plant is used to do this because it can react quickly with little restriction in an operating mode known as “free governor action”. Such operation leads to a slightly lower efficiency and, consequently, extra carbon dioxide emissions.

This has to be attributable directly to the use of wind power generation.

If, instead of feeding this energy directly into the instantaneous-demand-use system (eg, switch on a light) it was used in an isolated and dedicated manner for demands which are not immediate; e.g. de-salination of water; producing and storing hydrogen; processing waste; then we would see great benefits.

The wind power programmes of Western Europe may have little to miniscule effect on climate change or global warming. Although the two are closely coupled by the earth’s atmosphere, they have some quite fundamental differences.

Carbon dioxide is not so much a (and certainly not ‘the’) cause of either effect as it is an amplifying agent or, even, a synergistic exacerbator.

I really wish it were as simplistic as Mr Gregory would have us believe.

D M Loxley, Pickering