Sir, – In his letter headed No Payback (D&S, Sept 26) concerning the Longfield School solar panels, Dr John Lloyd complains that such installation makes “no economic sense”. In so doing, he is by no means the only person in my experience to challenge the validity of such projects. Though his figures may be correct, I feel that he paints entirely the wrong picture.

Payback in fact begins as soon as the panels start to generate electricity. This is energy that would otherwise have to be brought in from elsewhere, possibly distantly. From this point forward, the operation incurs neither further costs nor harmful emissions.

Moreover, think of the educational benefits: a daily reminder to pupils of the future scarcity of, and present damage from, fossil fuels, and their ongoing satisfaction of monitoring electricity production; and, secondly, the potential knock-on effects of awareness-raising among parents, the local community, and neighbouring schools.

We have solar panels, and are paid for the electricity thus generated, whether we use it ourselves or export it to the National Grid. In fact, remuneration has increased substantially since the solar panels were placed. This seems to me eminently sensible in economic terms; but, I repeat, that is emphatically not the point. The motive is to generate power from a renewable source, and thereby cut emissions of CO2.

Of course, there is an initial outlay of capital – and I am infuriated, frequently, by being asked “How long is it before you get your money back?” I am infuriated not just because the question misses the point, but because the same “payback”

reservation is very seldom, if ever, applied to the purchase of a new car, a house extension, or a foreign holiday.

It is time that we looked at things differently. If you yourself are not personally interested in creating green electricity, do not denigrate the efforts of those who are. I say: “Well done, and good luck” to Longfield School, and hope that many others follow suit.

CHRISTOPHER J LOWE Hutton Rudby.