BT, ring true?

When I first read this, I thought 'great!': BT invests £250m in wind farms

But, sadly, these days pretty much anything I read I need to question, just to make sure I am getting the full and accurate story. First for greenwash, and then for agenda.

Now I don't doubt it is probably a good thing, so please remember these are just questions, and the enviROI+ reasons they popped into my head:

'...a £250m wind farm project to generate renewable power that will supply a quarter of its energy needs by 2016.' Will? Or is this another 'at peak, 24/7 job? I just need to know because if not it is misleading, and also using one story to sell in (...puts pressure on other large UK companies with large land banks to consider similar action) others, possibly ill-considered. And I can't see that's right.

'...expects the new wind farm project to help the company hit its new target of 80 per cent by 2016.' Expects? Why not 'will'?

"... the UK derived around 4 per cent of its energy from renewable means, a figure it needs to treble over the next decade." Why? Targets? Or valid science/engineering estimates? What if this achievement does not actually reduce Co2 as well as other means?

" ... this is not the latest trend, this is the beginning of a cultural change. We all have to do this," I worry when I see it in terms like this. What matters is if these measures work. This aspect seems vague or unexplained almost every PR reprint I read.

"...could be windy enough to build wind farms, " Seeing a trend here?

"It said that its wind farms could generate a total of 250 megawatts of electricity, enough to power a city the size of Coventry. The project could save around 500,000 tonnes of carbon being emitted into the atmosphere, " Er...... And it is not even beyond being thought about. C'mon Indy, ask the questions!

"BT is looking for partners to participate in the project, " And finding them? How far off is this non story?