Re: ‘Rewetting’ could spell end of windmills (Bury Times, January 29).

May I make the following comment/observations : 1). The article referred to ‘windmills’. This ought more accurately to have read ‘wind turbines’.

2). The article implied that the wetting programme could do away with the need for wind turbines.

This is NOT true and is very misleading. Both projects are necessary in order to achieve long term benefits.

The wind turbines are a necessary and entirely separate method of producing CO2 free, renewable energy needs in their own right.

‘Rewetting’, or ‘wetting the peat’ could best be done in conjunction with the construction of wind farms, as is the case with Scout Moor. You will then get the best of both worlds and the wind farm will pay for the cost of the wetting programme. Otherwise it would have just been talked about and not actioned.

The idea is a very sound method of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. One of the elements of the work at Scout Moor, during the construction of the wind farm, was to find ways of increasing the water retention on the peat bogs for this very reason.

During the design and construction phase of the track network on the moor, considerable efforts were made to find ways of reducing water run-off speeds, during high rainfall periods. This would allow the peat to stay hydrated at all times. Also, decreasing the run-off speed would ensure much lower erosion, and this would in turn maintain the hydration effect. I believe that the design for Scout Moor was based on expecting to achieve an increase in water retention level of about 30 per cent. If the site is properly maintained (as it is confidently expected to be, by Peel Wind Power, Ltd.) then the water retention over the next 10 years could increase by a further 10 per cent.

Most wind farms, constructed on peat/moorland, do include as part of the initial study, hydrology surveys which are specifically looking at the issues of erosion and water retention.

In this way, by coupling the hydrology issue with the construction of the wind farm, there is a dual benefit and the wind farm pays for the project, and not the tax payer.

Bryan B Farlow Carr Bank Avenue Ramsbottom