"Conservationists," you report, fear for "thousands of birds at risk from the turbine's blades."

On the contrary, long-term studies in America suggest that each blade kills about three birds each year - many times fewer than those killed by hitting electricity power lines, moving cars, house windows, or being savaged by domestic cats.

Similar results have been obtained in this country.

Off Denmark, some falcons have even made their nests in cages in the towers, and it is also suggested that the bases of sea-based turbines paradoxically encourage marine life by creating small artificial reefs, and the reduction of fishing in the vicinity.

Despite having one of the most favourable European climates for the generation of wind and wave energy, similar suspicious approaches as in your article have meant that other countries have taken the lead.

Denmark, for example, expects to generate 40 per cent of its electricity needs from wind farms by 2030, and already designs and produces almost half of the world's turbines.

However, there do seem to be some justified concerns about turbines, in that they appear to affect marine birdlife by displacing it, and thus depriving it of feeding and nesting habitat.

In fact, English Nature, as long ago as 2001 was suggesting that turbines should be situated at least one kilometre away from important gull and tern nesting sites, and the DTI also identified Chichester and Langstone harbours as sensitive areas, where particular care should be taken when considering the introduction of alternative energy sources.

So, while the harbour might not, in the end, be the best place for a turbine, let's at least have a positive and informed debate.

John Horncastle
St Peter's Road
Hayling