El's Comments

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

See pages xviii and xx.

According to the DOE, In 2010, wind received 42% of all federal subsidies for electricity production and produced 2.3% of electricity generated. Coal produced 44.9% and received 10% of the subsidies. Natural gas and oil (almost all natural gas) produced 25% and received 3.6% of the subsidies. Nuclear produced 19.6% and received 19.8% of the subsidies.

Id est: $52.48/MWh for wind, $0.64/MWh for coal, $0.63/MWh for natural gas and oil, and $3.10/MWh for nuclear. Solar received $968/MWh. Hydro received $0.84/MWh.

This is only evidence of one wind opponent hoping to tap into fossil fuel money. It doesn't appear to have gone anywhere, and ATI itself issued a statement making it clear that Droz was acting alone.

"Amplify w/ pro-wind echo chamber"
(AWEA Leadership Council & Board of Directors Meeting, November 2, 2011)

If nothing else, this Gibbs-Rove conversation at the AWEA expo underscores that the continuation of wind is a political act rather than one of science or good sense.

With the lucrative tax avoidance it provides, it is no wonder that Washington/corporate insiders of whatever team don't want it to stop.

Landowners risk losing those payments if they go public with noise complaints. Because of the terms of the lease agreements, their testimony can not be considered the last word.

Nevertheless, many landowners and neighbors who welcomed the turbines have spoken out. That is obviously a different ending of the story. Heaping on contempt doesn't change it.

GeraldR: The Danes haven't added any new on-shore wind capacity since 2003. It is a boring topic only in that it is long settled: Giant wind turbines should not be built near people's homes (not to mention the homes of other animals).

tim-gard: Noise can not be engineered out of a machine whose purpose is to obstruct the wind with moving blades.

Cummings notes that many people raising health concerns are opposed to industrial wind for other reasons as well. Yet he ignores the fact that the efforts to dismiss health concerns are all by industry and governments with a vested interest in erecting more of the machines. In scientific literature, authors are not required to reveal their politics. They are, however, required to reveal financial and official ties that may be relevant to the topic.

The reality, therefore, is not actually so black and white — in that both sides exaggerate and are unreliable — as Cummings would have it. One side listens to the complaints of people who live near industrial wind turbines, and the other doesn't. Only the latter has a financial interest.

Furthermore, perhaps because it too does not fit the black-white cartoon, Cummings does not mention that most of the people who report adverse effects from industrial wind turbine noise actually supported their erection or accepted the reassurances of the developer.

Back to the article, there is "no evidence" seemingly because the Mass. DEP chose not to examine the evidence in their own back yard. How can they claim to have studied the issue without a single interview with anyone whose complaints compelled them to undertake this, not study, but obvious snowjob?

@aligatorhardt: The video you watched was a 2-1/2 minute trailer for a full-length movie. And that movie is primarily about the destruction of a community by predatory developers, hence a propos to this article.

And you should really stop going on about the blade speed, which does indeed range in different turbine models from 150 to 200 mph.

Finally, you write, "If you are to convince others to have sympathy for your case, you must have evidence that is true and believable. In comparison to the harms from using the alternative fossil fuel and nuclear power options, I will always choose a little noise and passing shadows over cancer and asthma, and extreme damages to air and water."

Where is your "true and believable" evidence that wind power actually reduces fossil fuel and nuclear power use, let alone cancer, asthma, and environmental damage?

@aligatorhardt: Who mentioned windconcernsontario? And someone who insists that a wind turbine blade can't go faster than 55 mph is in no position to mock their information.

@aligatorhardt: The tip speed of a wind turbine is easily calculated by multiplying the blade diameter times pi times the rpm (and then converting from, say, meters/min to miles/h). for example, A 3-MW Vestas V90 at 19 rpm has a tip speed of 200 mph.

@Anumakonda - Danish wind turbines are much much smaller than the giants being erected today. Denmark has not added any new onshore wind capacity since 2002, because the Danes know what that would mean.

@Anonymous - Actually, you are "begging the question" by implying a premise behind your question that is unproved. Even the Danes still use as much coal as ever. It's not "instead" but rather "in addition".

Nossen boasts two 600-kW, two 660-kW, five 1-MW, five 1.65-MW, and five 2-MW turbines. Zschadraß has a much more modest three 500-kW and one 2-MW turbine. The different impacts on the community would be easily predicted regardless of the ownership arrangements.