The only reason we adopt their use here is because they are viewed as the cheapest renewable form of energy, a fact which is decieving.

Wind turbines are woefully inefficient, they produce the most energy at the times of least need (autumn and spring), and they in constant need of backup power generation from regular power sources (coal).

They have next to no storage capability, and the embodied energy required for their construction, transport and installation leaves their green credentials looking decidely murky.

At a public forum held by the Victorian Energy Network Corporation (VENCorp) in August 2006, data was presented on the three days of highest demand in Victoria in 2003-04, which were December 9, 16 and 17. On December 9 and 16, demand reached its peak at 4pm.

At that time, the energy generated by the windfarms was at or near its lowest for the day. On the third day, thanks to a hot northerly, the supply from the windfarms peaked at peak demand time, but was well down for much of the rest of the time while demand was high.

This is backed up by the Bureau of Meteorology, which says the strongest winds around the Victorian coast tend to be in August-September, which is not when wind power is most needed.

When the hype dies down....we'll be left amongst power stations that don't work. Beyond that, it won't be long before the big energy traders dump these assets for their innefficiancy and high maintenance costs, once again leaving farming communities high and dry....

Wake up New South Wales, you've been taken for fools for far too long.

Have you considered that maybe wind turbines will help reduce the amount of dirty-coal being burned over a 12 month period? Surely it is simple common sense to ration non-renewable coal supplies for use during the peak winter and summer months.

Also, wind turbines might be costly to establish, but compared to what?

It's not a very helpful comparison because the overall cost of burning coal has itself never been properly measured in dollars and cents.

In the past our society has been shifting that cost onto future generations. It's our children - and their children - who will have to pay for the damage caused by CO2 emissions from all the coal and other fossil fuels we keep burning.

They do have an embedded energy cost, but so does everything else - at least their cost will be offset over time with clean energy. Travel to Europe and see what the Danes and Germans are doing. Their landscape is cleaner than ours and the sight of slowly spinning turbines is majestic and reassuring - far from obtrusive. And they now get up to 15pc of their electricity from this source!

The conservative Australian country people who will provide the land for the renewable energy infrastructure should embrace the opportunities to use their land productively, with minimal impact.

Farming practices have devastated this dry country with its poor soils - the deforested Crookwell area is a prime example. Sheep grazing out there has little future, but renewable energy farms are the way to go. High tech jobs, cleaner work, stable incomes.

Sur, it's an end to tradition, but it's a better outcome for farmers than just walking off their land altogether.

Let's show the cityfolk that not only can we feed them, but we can power them - cleanly - as well.

I most certainly agree that we need to mitigate coal burning with renewables. My point is that wind turbines are the easy option when compared to geothermal and solar thermal energy.

Geothermal is practically 100pc efficient, immensely abundant and we are world leaders in research and development.

We should be pouring our money and efforts into establishing this technology within Australia and beyond, rather than paying Spanish German or Japanese companies to ship turbines to us at taxpayer subsidised prices...

I'm not arguing that the aim is wrong, just the way in which we are going about it.... And Pade, I've been to both Germany and Denmark, wonderful places both. The problem by comparison lies with the fact that the Germans are spread out all over the country, 80million people and their biggest city by a long way is Munich, which has 2 million.

Each of their wind farms are small and feed the local community. You would be hard pressed to find many land based farms with a number of turbines greater than 10 or 12.

We like to build forests of the things, and plainly - nothing is more beautiful than an Australian country vista... sans turbines.

Furthermore, their locals hate them! I kid you not, they do not like them. Coming from friends of mine in Bavaria, I can offer that they appreciate their value as a source of renewable energy, but after many years they now see them not as "elegant" but for what they are - power plants.

As for their renewable targets...the Germans receive huge subsidies for the installation of solar panels to their homes. They also recieve a decent amount of funding for power that gets fed back into the grid, which personally think is unreal.

Heaven forbid that we should receive such an opportunity from our oracles in Canberra.

Most importantly: Dear Pade, I live "out there" in the Crookwell area NSW, and I can tell you as a matter of fact that it has some the best soils around.

Sheep country is down Yass way. We do potatoes and beef thanks all the same. Who are you kidding and who do you work for?.

As for showing the cityfolk...how about together as Australians we all show the world the successful and right way forward, rather than being told by Europe. Just a thought.

Germany has 22,541 MW of wind power installed, and would welcome 100pc output continuously. During 2007, maximum power was 17,000 MW, annual average 4,473 MW, worst day 260.9 MW.

It averaged 964 MW, 4.3pc, during Dec 12-24, 07, a peak month containing one of last winter’s three major anticyclones.

Keep the lights on with nuclear, coal, or more wind?

Besides that, calculations show that its a lot cheaper to adapt to climate-change compared to trying to reduce co2 emissions. Humans are responsible for less than 8pc of worldwide co2 emissions, so what will be the effect of going from 8pc to 7pc?

Also, climate has always changed in the past. In Victoria 55,000 years ago, the coast was 20km to the south. Approx 18,000 years before present (BP), sea levels began to rise slowly and Port Phillip Bay became inundated by the sea about 10,000 years BP (Marsden & Mallet 1975:114-116).

About 5,000 to 6,000 years BP, the sea reached a maximum of 1.5 to 2 metres higher than present.

Why is mankind thinking it can stop climate change? Get used to it!