Gerry's Comments

It is great that we are getting out of the subsidy business for an inefficient, costly and health riddled industry when it comes to wind energy. If wind is viable let industry support it on it's own not on the backs of tax payers.

In the third paragraph of this article Mr. Shields writes "I remain quite optimistic about the migration to renewable energy -- even if it will happen for reasons that are completely independent of the health and safety of the world's people." There is no mention about the health and safety of wind factory victims. I am one of those victims with numerous health issues to my family and myself. Legislators keep believing the lies of wind companies, yet at public hearings victims testimony far out numbers the positives of wind energy. Wind projects keep getting approved with out consideration for human health. Public outcry- Let's put nuclear on the fast track. That is my outcry. It is the most clean source of electricity production, is extremely safe and operates at 99% efficiency while industrial wind turbines are designed to be 27 to 30% efficient, yet often are much less. I would much rather have a 1000 MW nuclear power plant 3/4 of a mile from my home than 5 industrial wind turbines that are expensive, noisy and supply very little electricity. Wind energy is not about saving the earth or quality electricity, it is about money for wind companies and investors. If it were not for giant subsidies and production credits wind energy would be dead because private industry could not develope it and utilities would ignore it.

Renewable fuels standards and renewable portfolio standards for electricity should be eliminated instead of fuel providers and utility complanies saying these standards must be met. Stand up and fight the legislation. These standards are crammed down the throats of producers and can not reasonably be met. Add to it cafe standards the auto manufactures have to meet. It only lowers quality to the consumer as well as needless cost. Let demand drive the need for useless (I mean renewable) fuels, tax farms (oops, I mean wind farms) and the cars we want to drive. Not polititians that only want votes for the next election.

Mr. Clark you are 100% right on. Even some of those signing leases to host wind turbines will wish they didn't. It will devide the community and when construction is done and the industrial wind turbines are turning we will read and hear all the complaints just like wind projects all over the world. The wind project surrounding me (Forward project by Invenergy) was 17.5% of capacity for the 3rd quarter of 2008. Yes, very inefficient.

All this "has the capicity to produce" is nonsense. Divide the 23,500 homes by four to get a possible practial amount of homes powered by the project. Wind turbines are designed to be 27 to 30% efficient. The Forward project by Invenergy that I live in was 17.5% of it's capacity in the 3rd quarter of 2008. The next time you need to buy a furnace or air conditioner try to find one that is that inefficient. What about the health affects from living near industrial wind turbines. You don't mention that. Or the lower property values. The more I learn about wind energy the more I realize there really are no benefits other than to fill the wallets of the wind energy companies. I no longer see deer or turkeys on my property since the turbines began turning. I hear the turibnes in all rooms of my home on a daily basis. There are 5 within 3/4 of a mile of our house. Our quality of life has been tremendously deminished. I know the same has happened in Mars Hill.