Wind farms fail to deliver value for money, report claims - Telegraph

The report says that wind farms are unprofitable and rely on hefty subsidies that ultimately come from consumers in the form of rising energy prices. This cost comes on top of increases in gas and electricity prices caused by the high price of oil. They risk leaving the poorest members of society struggling to heat their homes.

The report, written by John Constable, of REF, and Robert Barfoot, the chairman of the North Devon branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, says that the subsidy scheme is encouraging energy firms to build as many wind farms as possible because it is more profitable than investing in other more expensive forms of renewable technology, such as wave power.

They say: "The market for renewable energy is an artificial one created and maintained by government legislation. The question is whether this consumer-derived money is well spent. It is worth noting that the excessive subsidy offered to onshore wind development has drawn developers even to sites where the wind resource is very weak and the environmental impact severe."

EU Referendum: Paying through the nose

One of the largest beneficiaries is Castle Cement, which makes a quarter of all British cement at three works in Lancashire, north Wales (pictured) and Rutland. While total CO2 emissions from the three plants have fallen from 2.3m metric tons in 2005 to 2.1m in 2007, they have been allocated 2.9m metric ton in permits for each of the next five years - an annual surplus of 829,000 permits.

At the current price of £21 per metric ton, the company could sell its surplus permits for £83.5m over the five years.

Perversely, some enterprises have been allocated fewer permits than they require, not least the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. It is predicting an annual deficit of 5,800 and is thus needing to siphon over £120,000 a year from its clinical budget to buy extra permits.