HINESBURG — Vermont could get half its electric power from renewable sources within 10 years, including 20 percent from wind, if it gets busy developing the resources now, says a new report. The report by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, issued Thursday in the front yard of a company that makes testing equipment for potential wind power sites, comes against the backdrop of a debate over energy policy that has grown increasingly heated and increasingly political this election season.

Philip Bowman, the new chief executive of ScottishPower, yesterday attacked the planning constraints that slow the growth of renewable energy in the UK and he urged the government to stump up greater investment for renewable technology.

The UK is not as windy as the British government thought. The country’s first generation of wind farms are delivering less power than predicted, according to an analysis of official data on their output. The finding dents government hopes that wind turbines could generate up to a fifth of the UK’s energy by 2020.

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) _ Australia's government says its plans to create the world's largest solar power station by turning a wasteland into a glistening field of mirrors is a step toward making the sun-drenched country a world leader in clean energy. But critics say the government, which is riding on the back of an economic boom driven by sales of Australia's main export, coal, and other resources, is moving too slowly on less-polluting alternatives to fossil fuels and is using clean-energy arguments to launch a nuclear power industry.

Australia's prime minister has backed an electricity and gas company study emphasizing nuclear and coal instead of renewable energy and energy efficiency. As Australia attempts to address greenhouse gas emissions and a need for more energy, Prime Minister John Howard said, The answer is a greater emphasis on clean coal and nuclear power.He was responding to a report by the Energy Supply Association of Australia that said hitting a goal for reducing global warming pollution by 2030 would cost $75 billion, and wind, solar and other non-polluting energy sources would not be enough. It recognizes that while renewables such as solar and wind have a role to play, and we have always argued that, they will not provide the fundamental answer, Howard said. The ESAA is a trade group of Australia's electricity and downstream gas industries, the Sydney Morning Herald reported. The report said Australia should feed between 15 percent and 20 percent of its energy demand by nuclear reactors and rely on natural gas and coal for much of the rest. It is in the interests of the fossil fuel industry to claim that renewable energy and energy efficiency are no solution to climate change and that we must rely instead on an experimental and costly technology, said Christine Milne, a senator with the Green Party.

The debate was put into a proper perspective by the Times-Tribune newspaper in Scranton., which wrote: “America’s future as a world power and leading economy will be determined largely by its ability to meet the increasing demand for energy, while weaning itself from foreign oil and protecting the environment.

Despite a short-term spike in the cost of wind power, data from a recent Emerging Energy Research study shows wind energy is nearly cost-competitive. The Comparative Costs of Energy report focuses on the European market but can be applied to the U.S. market as well, said William Ambrose, president of EER. Much of the study was based on global trends in the industry, he said.

CHATHAM --- Is wind power an important element in weaning the country away from its reliance on fossil fuels, or a boondoggle that will do nothing more than line the pockets of investors and power companies? And where does the proposed Cape Wind project fit into all of this?

Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Once again, representatives of the U.S. wind power industry are finding themselves fighting a battle against legislative attacks from politicians hoping to stymie new development of projects. Laws that would have been damaging to an already struggling offshore wind power business in the U.S. almost made it into the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and now, two new provisions in two pending bills in Congress are reigniting the fight.

The Government’s energy strategy declares a preference for renewable energy and for emissions trading but comes with two major caveats. One is Energy Minister David Parker’s assurance yesterday that security of supply is paramount. Because of the variability from one year to another in how much rain and snow fall in the catchment of the hydro lakes, and because of the intermittent nature of wind power, that suggests a continuing major role - as Parker confirmed - for thermal generators. The other caveat relates to his oft-stated need to relate the stringency of any measures New Zealand adopts in the longer term to the pace of progress elsewhere in the world.

In his first major speech on climate change David Cameron will outline Conservative plans to replace Labour's Climate Change Levy with a new, more effective and better targeted Carbon Levy.

If we are to spurn the nuclear option, or indeed if we are to embrace it, we must do so only once we have taken all aspects into account. Rigour and honesty is required, too. We must accept the relevance of the subsidies that wind power receives, and the low carbon nature of nuclear energy.

Tories backed its nuclear message with a call for on-shore wind farm projects to be frozen.

The permit application for the offshore wind farm slated for the North Sea has been approved. Now the partnership Evelop International and Ballast Nedam Concessies has the exclusive right to develop Scheveningen Buiten. Rijkswaterstaat Noordzee announced the approval includes the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The wind farm, Scheveningen Buiten, which will be built outside the 12-mile zone off the seaside resort of Scheveningen, approximately 30 kilometers (km) from the coast, is expected to be finished by 2011. It will generate more than 300 megawatts (MW).

Our state leaders are promulgating a false choice between wind and coal. While wind is renewable and cleaner than coal, wind will never replace coal — wind is too unreliable.

But before anyone starts building windmills and sun collectors across the country, the coal mines should be given a second chance, while Germany's nuclear powers stations should run for as long as they're still safe. It's all a question of getting the balance right.

Hudi Hastowo told reporters that while there would be no technical or economic problems with building a nuclear plant, achieving public acceptance would still be difficult. "We'll hold a public awareness campaign, since we don't have any other options to deal with future power shortages (apart from nuclear energy)," he said. "Remote villages may use solar panels or wind turbines but those technologies can't generate the massive amounts of power needed for industry."

Democrats said the legislation could produce as much as $15 billion in revenue. Most of that money would pay to promote renewable fuels such as solar and wind power, alternative fuels including ethanol and biodiesel and incentives for conservation.

Eyesores or clean machines? Environmentalists are split over the giant energy-producing towers popping up in Maryland and other states.