I HAVE a question for Cllr Alan Preest which I hope he will answer: if he considers all forms of renewable energy as "rubbish" (as stated in his letter), does that mean he is a supporter of coal-fired and nuclear power, natural gas, plus fracking, coalbed methane extraction and coalbed gasification?

If his answer to this question is 'yes', does that mean he is content for us locally and nationally to rely on eastern European, Russian and North Sea coal and gas, brought to us via a power station in Nottinghamshire and nuclear power brought to us from just across the Severn – some of it from a very short distance from the southern boundary of his county council division, from planned new power stations at Berkeley and Oldbury - with Chinese and French money providing it and raking in the cash?

Currently, radioactive nuclear waste can be stored for less than 100 years. As almost all of the waste produced has a half-life of more than one million years, does he support the measure in the Infrastructure Bill, currently being discussed in Parliament, to allow any substance to be abandoned anywhere underground?

This substance will potentially allow nuclear waste to be dumped in Forest of Dean mine shafts – a proposal that was thankfully defeated by freeminers in the 1980s.

The Forest of Dean district is also included on the Department of Energy (DECC) map for exploration of unconventional hydrocarbons.

This includes shale-gas fracking – the area alongside the Severn between Chepstow and Newport is already licensed – and also coalbed gasification where an entire coal seam is pumped with oxygen and set alight and the gas collected above the ground.

While it's been argued that this district has the wrong sort of geology for shale gas, of course the Forest of Dean has at least 14 coal seams.

I can understand and sympathise with opposition to fields full of solar panels and large-scale wind farms.

The various proposals for solar and wind schemes in Coleford, and across the Severn Vale from Lydney to Westbury, would bring little, if any, public benefits (besides clean energy) or revenue to the area as the companies involved tend to be hedge funds with offshore status.

However, Cllr Preest and his party draw no distinction between these exploitative schemes and small-scale ventures planned by a local social enterprise company which works in partnership with landowners, business and the wider community with dividends for all parties.

The planned community-scale single wind turbine at Alvington Court will allow people within the community to have direct shares in the project – and four per cent of all revenue generated will go directly to community projects.

I would advise Cllr Preest and his UKIP colleagues to go on a fact-finding mission to St Briavels where an identical scheme has, so far, in the past 18 months of operation, benefited the school, assembly hall and other community facilities to the tune of £17,000 as well as providing clean energy via the local grid to between 300 and 700 homes at any time.

This pilot model, which won first prize at an international competition last month, has the potential of creating local jobs and attracting outside investment and all without any radioactive waste, depletion of fossil fuels, oil or gas, or potential pollution of our water supplies and earthquakes.

A single, 86-metre turbine per project, I would consider is a small price to pay for these genuine benefits it is providing.

As for the mooted hydro schemes making the same deals with communities – they could alleviate flooding of the Lyd and Severn, slow down coastal and riverbank erosion, extend coastal habitats considerably and also permit secondary industries such as fish farming, thus creating more jobs without harming the environment.

We need to get our power from somewhere – and I presume Cllr Preest and UKIP realise this – and I would have thought they'd prefer it if revenue from power generation went to locals rather than foreigners.

It's only reasonable­ if we are to have some kind of power plant installation on our doorstep, even if it is only photo-voltaic panels or an isolated turbine (which I consider more aesthetically pleasing than a nuclear power station).

UKIP's prospective parliamentary candidate is pressing the Labour candidate and Tory MP to join him for a debate on foreign aid: maybe he should factor in the foreign aid we are currently giving every minute of every day to foreign companies and governments through our consumption of foreign coal and foreign nuclear?

UKIP make a big deal of their desire to keep everything in-house, so why the opposition to local community energy projects? ­

– Owen Adams, Ruardean.