The Washington Times should help correct – not contribute to -- “popular wisdom” about wind energy. Neither Senator Domenici nor Senator Bingaman (nor Grassley and Dorgan) deserves praise for promoting “wind energy.” Instead, they should be condemned for continuing to funnel tax credits and tax dollars to their friends and contributors in the wind industry.
Editor's Note: This letter is addressed to the Washington Times in response to its recent editorial entitled 'Cape Wind and pork-barrel politics'. The complete editorial follows the letter.

If Cape Wind Associates had its way, a walk on the beach wouldn't be a walk on the beach. It would be a science project. Or a lesson in how not to do things, in poor public policy. It would be an opportunity to reflect upon a past that had been plundered in the name of progress.

The state shouldn't allow companies to build hundreds of windmills off the coast without first studying their effects on tourism, anglers and wildlife. There's no bigger part of New Jersey's multi-billion dollar tourism industry than the shore.

The developers had built their case on three claims: the amount of electricity their machine would generate, how many homes it would supply, and the carbon dioxide emissions it would save. I presented the inquiry with a paper comparing these claims with official figures, to show how each had been exaggerated to a quite laughable degree.

I am not a member of the 'not in my backyard' brigade and if wind power does offer hope for the planet, then the mills' hypnotic presence might be a price worth paying. But the spread of these unsightly structures seems a metaphor for many of our current efforts. They are attention-grabbers that cannot even support local community needs, let alone make much impact on our current energy-guzzling assault on the planet.

Do you still think this is only objected to by wealthy mansion owners? The number of everyday working people, retirees, fishermen, vacationers, boaters and "just plain folks" who will be affected by this project is enormous, and the effects will be felt for years.

Rather than trying to dismiss the outspoken opposition by Londonderry as some sort of aberration or NIMBY like behavior, Vermonters throughout the state need to do the same careful research and homework that Londonderry has done.

One can certainly concur with concerns about how our culture's fossil fuel combustion practices help accelerate the process of global warming—without uncritically agreeing that the intrusive nature of windpower technology is even a partial solution to the problem.
Editor's Note: Ted Williams' 'Wind Advisory' is available via the link below.

Our ridge lines are as precious as they are vulnerable. And wind power’s advocates have yet to make a solid case for spoiling them.

The fight to preserve our visual and cultural heritage has entered a new phase now. The outcome is in the hands of people who don’t know much about who we are or what’s really at stake here. We are on a political, legislative and regulatory track that is complex and has a mind of its own.

Massachusetts has an ambitious goal for renewable-energy development but no realistic plan or guidelines to reach it. The result is a free-for-all with the state lavishing money on wind-power development in the Berkshires, investors and other states benefiting from the largess, and Berkshire towns and residents left in the dark as to the real consequences for our community, our economy, and our beautiful mountains.
Editor's Note: Eleanor Tillinghast is head of Green Berkshires, Inc., an environmental group based in western Massachusetts.

However, because of the intermittent, unpredictable nature of wind, no homes would be powered by the wind industry. Given this limitation and the fact that industrial electricity must be consumed immediately, wind can generate only energy – not capacity – to the electricity grid.

Wind power does not respond to demand. It may or may not be there when needed.... We will therefore need as much other electricity sources with wind as we would without.... It is not just unnecessary but offensive to entertain industrial-scale development of the ridgelines, with strobe lights and noise and ecological degradation that far surpasses anything now on the mountains, for such obvious nonsense.

A Research Into the Achilles' Heel of the Wind Industry. With a wealth of examples and references, Dr. Etherington enlightens us on the principal weakness of windfarms: their erratic, unpredictable production of electricity. A modern economy cannot afford blackouts, so wind power production must be backed up 24h a day by conventional power, which substantially reduces the C02 savings

Conclusion. Wind power is expensive, doesn’t deliver the environmental benefits it promises and imposes substantial environmental costs. Accordingly, it does not merit continued government promotion or funding.