Not me, of course, but someone in The Independent, making the most sense I've heard from anyone recently on the subject of Energy.
The debate on energy policy needs to be conducted by people who are much better informed than the "the wind doesn't blow all the time you know" bores such as Dominic Lawson ("The answer is not blowing in the wind", 7 March).
Even the Government seems to be pursuing the matter as if God had hidden a holy grail full of cost-free energy somewhere and all we had to do was find it. Every time a source of energy turns out not to be "the Answer", it is rejected and the search for the Holy Answer resumed. The real answer is a proper policy, one that takes into account everything, takes from each the best of what it can offer, accepts that each is bound to have a price of some kind, and puts the lot together into an integrated, joined up, balanced, co-ordinated, whole.
The recipe will almost certainly include: some onshore wind, some offshore wind, some bio-mass, some geothermal, some large-scale hydro, some small-scale hydro, some tidal barrages, some wave power, some photo-galvanic, maybe some nuclear; and carbon sequestration, if it can be made to work. There are more. There will also be a lot of energy efficiency, a big reduction in energy-greedy activity and a complete stop to all those plain daft things, like carting lorry loads of bottled water around the country and heating patios.
If we go on rejecting each and every one of these because it has a downside: offends someone's taste, alters a habitat, or simply because it isn't the whole Answer, we are morons. What does not have a cost? What is ever the whole answer? There is a very, very serious, totally appalling, crisis looming. All this bar-room pontificating by Nimby know-nothings isn't going to solve it.
MARKET RASEN, LINCOLNSHIRE