One of the oldest and most efficient wind farms in Britain is to be dismantled and replaced by a nuclear power station under plans drawn up by the German-owned power group RWE.

The site at Kirksanton in Cumbria - home to the Haverigg turbines - has just been approved by the government for potential atomic newbuild in a move that has infuriated the wind power industry.

Colin Palmer, founder of the Windcluster company, which owns part of the Haverigg wind farm, said he was horrified that such a plan could be considered at a time when Britain risks missing its green energy targets and after reassurance from ministers that nuclear and renewables were not incompatible.

"My first reaction was disbelief, quickly followed by a sense of years of commitment to sustainable energy being destroyed," Palmer said. "At a time when the government is calling for wind energy development to be accelerated, it beggars belief that they are supporting plans that will result in the destruction of existing capacity."

Palmer said he was angry that he was never consulted about the plan by RWE or anyone else before the site was put forward for official approval.

"The first we heard was when the proposals were made public, which is contrary to the nomination requirements that stipulate early consultation with key stakeholders," he said.

The Haverigg site, on the fringes of the Lake District, was commissioned in 1992 and is believed to be one of only two of its type in this country.

The scheme has been praised by Friends of the Lake District as a fine example of appropriate wind energy development and the turbines were financed by a pioneering group of ethical investors. The site was subsequently expanded to a total of eight turbines after £6m additional investment. Haverigg was still one of the most efficient wind farms with a 35% "capacity factor" - or efficiency - compared with an average of 30%, said Palmer.

RWE confirmed last night that its plans to construct a nuclear plant at Kirksanton could lead to the destruction of the windfarm, but said that was by no means certain. "It is true there is an overlap and it could lead to some turbines needing to be moved or the whole site being used. But we would have to discuss that with the operator and landowner," said a spokesman for RWE.

"Its worth pointing out that we could build up to 3,600 megawatts of low or free CO2 power compared to the 3.5MW or so of wind power that we might replace. And it's not a case or wind or nuclear. We ourselves are spending over £1bn on wind."

Triodos Renewables, the owner of three of the turbines on the same site, shares Windcluster's concerns.

Matthew Clayton, operations director of Triodos, said: "It's staggering that they [ministers] don't exclude areas that are already productive sites for renewable technologies as part of the initial screening process. It just isn't very joined up. They're stamping out prime wind sites with arguably a much less sustainable technology."

Martin Forwood, a spokesman for local environmental campaign group Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, said the RWE plans had been revealed at a Cumbria county council forum meeting. "It beggars belief that at a time when wind power has never been more vital to the UK, a viable windfarm is to be sacrificed on the altar of nuclear power.

"It also exposes the duplicity of RWE, who have previously claimed that it was a myth that newbuild will detract from the construction of renewables," he said.

The British Wind Energy Association said the enormous speed with which nuclear plants appeared to be moving through the planning process - responsible for part of the anger around Haverigg - compared dramatically with all the problems being faced by dozens of windfarms. "We need a level playing field for all types of generation when it comes to planning regulation and government support," said the association.

How they compare Wind Nuclear Overall cost of generating electricity/KWh 5.42p 2.8p Cost of fuel per Mwh none 4 Speed of build 5 years 8 years+ Lifetime 15 years 50 years Waste produced none Several grades of radioactive substances, some that remain dangerous for thousands of years Lifetime carbon footprint (gC02 equivalent/KWh) 4.64g/5.25g (onshore/offshore) 5g Fans Environmental NGOs James Lovelock, UK government Opponents David Bellamy Environmental NGOs

• Sources: Vestas, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, BERR, Royal Academy of Engineering

• This article was amended on Thursday 30 April 2009. The table above published with the report Anger at plans for nuclear power station to replace wind farm, listed the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) as an opponent of wind farm development. The CPRE does not oppose wind power; it assesses applications for wind farms on a case-by-case basis. This has been corrected.