Windmills will clutter Wisconsin's landscape says Robert Jensen of Waunakee: 

Look again at the picture on the front page of last Sunday's Opinion section. Do we really want windmills on every acre of land in Wisconsin to obstruct the beautiful sunrise and sunsets we have?

Should this be the answer to the perceived, man-made but unproven "science" of global climate change? Let's also consider the birds that are killed by these things. A picture is truly worth a thousand words in this case.

Continue to work with local governments says Jim Bembinster of Evansville:

The wind industry enjoyed exceptional growth last year. While governments, businesses and families are experiencing major budget shortfalls, the wind industry wants more from taxpayers and ratepayers. This industry is being driven by greed.

The unprecedented growth in wind capacity in 2008 indicates no need for siting reform. Wind developers must continue to work with local governments for approval of wind turbine projects.

A one-size-fits-all rule developed by the Public Service Commission will not adequately address the diverse land use in Wisconsin. Only local control of land use can protect the health and safety of residents, agricultural activity and property rights.

The process vegetable business, a $750 million industry that employs thousands, will be in serious jeopardy if growers are unable to use pesticides in a timely manner with aerial application. It was made clear at one hearing that Wisconsin pilots will not fly inside or half a mile downwind of a turbine facility.

This hysterical approach to wind development by advocates and developers is going to harm Wisconsin's citizens and our economy.

Make it easier to build wind farms says Larry Zimmerman of New Lisbon:

Wind farm regulations should be reformed.

Time is against us. We have to be able to build more -- even smaller wind farms. Thirty years ago or so, we were allowed to build a wind charger on our farm, business or house to save electricity and put some back in the power system.

I think ethanol plants should have wind farms to supply their power needs and maybe the areas they are in. If given more flexibility, there could be wind farms for housing developments or big farm operations.

Our wise leaders want them - in your backyard says Dave Marohl of Sun Prairie:

Sunday's editorial argued that authority regarding wind power installations ought to be taken from local governments and given to the state. The reason for this is that locals may not want wind farms in their backyard and they should be governed by Smart People Who Know Better What Is Good For Them.

This makes sense, particularly if you look at the way the power centers in Madison and Milwaukee have always treated the rest of the state. We don't want wind farms where they would obscure the view of the Capitol, and who cares about the yokels in, say, Kekoskee?

We should take it a step further and strip the states of any authority, giving it entirely to Washington. Folks there know full well that nobody counts outside of the East and West coasts.

All wind farms (which still appear to have problems actually being effective purveyors of power) could all be stacked in meaningless areas like Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Wyoming, where nobody of any importance lives.

If it were left to Washington, maybe we'd even have wind farms in Downtown Madison. That'd be at least a Pyrrhic victory for the folks in Iron Ridge.

Unbiased research essential before reform says Steve Oakeson of Evansville:

If I thought for a minute that Wisconsin had my best interest at heart, I would be all for state control of wind farms. But that is not the case.

When the primary source of information for the control of wind farms comes from the wind farm industry, you can bet that it is skewed to the benefit of the wind farm industry. The regulations are written such that local governments have to base any exceptions on scientifically-defendable facts, but the regulations aren't based on science.

When a local government entity looked into the proposed wind farm regulations, they found little to no research being used for the basis of how far back a turbine should be from homes and other health-related concerns.

The wind industry has been told "no" by local governments, so the industry went to state government and cried a river of tears, just like the farm industry did to get the livestock facility (factory farms) siting regulations passed.

If the State Journal did some digging to find the facts, I think the paper's editorial board would have come to a different conclusion.

Consider adjacent land values, quality of life says Gerald McConoughey of Richland Center:

Regarding your wind farm editorial, I am in favor of the state setting standards for the placement of wind turbines, provided that two things are given due consideration:

• The quality of life of those living near the placements.

• The impact on land values at and near the placement sites.

My son-in-law is involved with this same question in Illinois, and his property is in danger of being devalued.

Need real debate on wind's pros and cons says Dennis G. Reinen of Lodi:

Your editorial makes the assumption, I think falsely, that wind power makes sense both economically and esthetically for Wisconsin, and you dismiss anyone who disagrees with your position as misinformed.

There are many problems with wind power. One big technical problem with wind is that it is unreliable -- the wind does not always blow with sufficient velocity to generate power and, as a result, fossil fuel or nuclear power plants need to be kept on line to provide power when wind power is unavailable.

So no fossil fuel power plants are idled by investing in wind, which is exactly what happened in Denmark, where massive investments in wind have been made.

And environmentally, windmills are ugly and despoil the landscape as they slowly rust in the sunset.

I would like to see as a true debate on the merits of wind-generated power. Instead of editorials that take a position but do nothing to inform, there should be real discussion pro and con.

Property owners should consider small turbines says David J. Gonzalez, CEO, Planet Turbine, of Reedsburg:

Regarding wind power, those who say they want to bring jobs and money to Wisconsin typically ignore the role that individual property owners could have, while others go well beyond public health and safety in developing wind turbine ordinances, including "small" turbines. The only standard that warrants attention is public health and safety.

A mere four-foot square piece of property and a bit of wind are all that is needed to generate income that covers use, meets needs and provides some benefit to others. Most of the smaller wind turbines sold and installed by our company require winds of only 4.5 to 10 mph to generate maximum outputs. Given that the state's wind speed average is 16 mph, even a 30 kw or 50 kw turbine, on a pole 40 feet to 80 feet in height, can operate efficiently.

And the return on such an investment is phenomenal. The federal income tax credit is 30 percent of project cost, plus accelerated depreciation of 50 percent the first year.

However, this federal money will not come if local regulations and moratoriums stand in the way of individual property owners who want to act.

Kudos to towns with turbine ordinances says James Congdon of Horicon:

I was appalled by the State Journal's insensitive and uninformed attitude that opposition to wind energy systems is due to "alarming concerns, commonly based in misinformation."

Research has shown that wind turbines should not be sited in populated areas. Turbine noise and blade flicker affect the health of people living near them, depreciate property value and destroy the aesthetic quality of the rural countryside.

Several Wisconsin counties and towns thoroughly researched wind energy and wisely adopted ordinances requiring greater distance between turbines and residences as well as property lines to protect the health of nearby residents.

The wind companies now want the Public Services Commission to set siting standards that will overrule local ordinances so they can build wind energy systems wherever they want, regardless of the effects on people and the landscape. The wind companies are only interested in profits.

Why is Gov. Jim Doyle trying to force wind turbines on rural residents? The place to build them is in low population states that want them. Get informed. Energy conservation in Wisconsin -- not wind turbines -- is the answer.

Wind farm resident calls it 'a nightmare' says Gerry Meyer of Brownsville:

I live in the Public Service Commission-approved Invenergy wind farm in Fond du Lac County, and it's a nightmare. Allowing turbines 1,000 feet from homes, 440 feet from property lines and a 50-decibel sound limit is irresponsible and was obtained with no scientific data regarding health and safety.

Health effects are numerous: interrupted sleep, sleep deprivation, headaches, ringing and buzzing in the ears, anxiety, anger, loss of balance, lack of motivation, nausea, light-headedness, loss of memory, fatigue, chest pains and weight gain due to chemical imbalance, to name a few.

It's not just the audible noise. Most significant is the low frequency noise emitted by the 400-foot industrial wind turbines. And shadow flicker is a major issue for many residents.

Those who drive to a wind farm and say they don't hear anything are showing ignorance. They do not live here. Property values plummet. Some realtors tell residents they will not market a home that won't sell anyway.

The siting bill by Sen. Jeff Plale, D-South Milwaukee, needs to be defeated, and a moratorium needs to be in place until all health issues are remedied. Get educated at
www.betterplan.squarespace.com .

Will wind industry be sued like tobacco firms? says Sandy Vercauteren of Byron:

I can tell you -- because I'm living it -- that turbines are being sited too close to people's homes.

The shadow flicker in the house is sickening, the noise is unbearable and the constant vibrations we are exposed to are unhealthy.

And the diminishment of people's hard-earned assets because of the "loss of saleability," as the real estate agents put it, is a crime.

I see the day when enough of this information has been exposed and the turbine industries are sued like the tobacco industry was for the damage they have done to innocent victims.