I READ with amusement Peninsula Power?s press release (Times, December 2), that asserted that the roadshow had had a positive response and ?the silent majority were either in favour or just wished to hear the real facts to make up their minds?. The reality is that the meetings confirmed just how appalled people are with the out of scale proposal, the fanciful claims for the technology that has never previously worked anywhere in the world, and the way that Peninsula Power has communicated (or to be more precise not communicated) with communities over the past 18 months. Peninsula Power had never previously held any public consultation with any communities around Winkleigh and those most affected by the threatened increase in HGV lorries, such as Beaford, Crediton, Copplestone and Sampford Courtenay. Recently, the Tyndall College for Climate Change Research (University of Manchester) carried out an extensive opinion survey. It found that 88% felt negatively about the project and only 6% felt positively. After the roadshow communities remain extremely concerned by the project, as they rightly fear the impact of increased HGV traffic along minor roads, emissions and a decline in tourists visiting the area. Since the meetings, I have been contacted by a number of farmers who have evaluated the economics of growing miscanthus and SRC willow. All have told me that the claims, price and risk all point one way - ?the whole scheme to get farmers to grow energy crops does not stack up.? Peninsula Power claims that its project will make a long-term contribution to developing renewable energy. However, as more and more has come out about the lengthy construction phase; the vast tonnages of biomass needed to be transported considerable distances along Devon roads (over half a million HGV miles per annum for WINBEG 1 alone); and the fossil fuels needed to plant, crop and store miscanthus and other biomass, it has become increasingly obvious that the scheme is far from green. We have constantly asked what is the fossil fuel trade off for the project but Peninsula Power has refused to answer. I urge Times readers to write to Torridge District Council , Riverbank House, Bideford, EX39 2QG with their letters of objection, quoting reference: 1/2149/2004/61/FUL. The deadline is December 16 and it is vital that local democracy wins. David Lausen Chairman, Winkleigh Society THE Winkleigh Biomass Energy Project public consultation meeting at Winkleigh was addressed by the authors of the independent reports to allow their key findings and conclusions to be presented. The reports are written independently to inform the planning authority of the impacts of the project. The authors do not and are not allowed under law to express a view as to whether the project is acceptable or otherwise, that is the role of the planning authority under planning law. The protestors? behaviour demonstrated their belief that the reports were biased in favour of the project; in fact all the reports actually do is objectively set out the facts:- Transport: the traffic surveys were carried out in accordance with Government and Devon County Council guidelines on figures obtained from DCC highways department of their own traffic surveys taken during 2003 which is the latest published information! The conclusion of the traffic impact assessment; passing the survey points north of Beaford and at the southern end of the Winkleigh bypass is that one in every 100 vehicles would be a lorry being used to transport fuel to Winbeg. If as claimed by the protestors, traffic has increased by 40% since the traffic surveys were carried out in 2003, then; one in every 140 vehicles is a lorry for Winbeg Considerable criticism was directed at the Scott Wilson for using out of date air quality data as a baseline for their impact study. It is a fact that the last full air quality survey covering Winkleigh was carried out by the Met Office in 1987. The Met Office carry out regular spot checks in the Winkleigh area and these reveal no changes to the published full survey results of 1987, Further Scott Wilson have a signed confirmation of this from the Met Office. Peninsula Power were criticised by the protestors for displaying a deliberately misleading architect?s model, and Scott Wilson were accused of understating the number of people living in the immediate vicinity of the Winbeg Site. Both these statements are totally untrue. The architect?s model was designed to show the project within the setting of the airfield site from a visual impact perspective only, not to show all the immediate residential properties. The model was designed to give a three-dimensional view and used an aerial photograph as its base, and all the features on the photograph were included. This photograph is now available on the PPL website. As part of the public exhibition all the residential properties in the vicinity were shown on the maps. The author of the Enviros report on the technical competence of PPL and its advisors and the FERCO Gasification Technology; was criticised for not contacting the US Government Department of Energy (DOE), the protestors claiming the DOE were the ?experts?. The fact is that no civil servant would claim to be a technical expert on any technology. The expertise relied on by the DOE lay with the Battelle Institute and various independent consultants who wrote the evaluation reports on the performance of the pilot and commercial demonstration plants built to demonstrate the FERCO SilvaGas process. These evaluation reports are all available at the International Energy Agency and it was to this body the author turned for his information. PPL have said all along they were proud of the Winbeg Project. We have been informed that the project is being presented as an ?Exemplar Project? from a technology and visual impact perspective at the Powergen International Conference being held at Orlando, Florida, USA this week. Peter L Moralee Technical director, Peninsula Power I WAS interested in the report of the Peninsula Power Ltd presentation regarding the proposed Winkleigh Biomass plant. I didn?t attend any of the meetings but was interested to see the comments of Mr Fitzsimmons, PPL?s chairman, that ?the silent majority were either in favour or just wished to make up their own minds?. Why not ballot all people living within, say, eight miles of the proposed plant? Surely such a ballot would be a fair way of establishing the views of the local people. In terms of cost, compared with the £40-million cost of the plant a few thousand pounds on a ballot would be negligible. I am fairly sure the people in the area would be willing to stand by the results of the ballot. The interesting question is would PPL and the Government? Alan Newton Winkleigh