I have been following the toing and froing of arguments about windpower and solar energy with some interest. But regardless of how much energy is converted, who pays the subsidy to the producers?

Mr Kear is generously donating some of the income from his turbines to Coleford, the income from the solar panels at Vantage Point will reduce costs, the big energy supplier building a 70 turbine wind farm will receive a generous top up per kwh and a grant. But who pays this out? Well, if you use electricity, it will be you.

It will be the poorest in society who will give generously to Coleford, reduce costs for Vantage Point or line the pockets of a foreign power company (and they are nearly all foreign owned).

If you live in a supported electric only property in Newent you will contribute, if you have a key meter you will contribute, if you live in a private flat owned by a landlord who hasn't or won't provide proper insulation you will contribute; if you live in your own property scraping by on a pension or benefits you will contribute. In fact this tax on electricity hits the people who can least afford it.

Generally those who can afford it will get PV panels and make money off them.

Fact: during the recent gales in Scotland one windfarm was paid £1.2 million pounds not to produce electricity. You paid for that. Ironically if a polluting coal or gas plant stops for any reason they have to pay – no incentive there then.

If green energy is so good for the environment it should be produced without the consumer subsidising it.

– Ian Coghlan, Pillowell.