AS with so many of their policy positions, Robin Harper of the Greens (Letters, May 31) chooses to ignore the fact that, like so much of the Green policy rhetoric, their approach to the vexed question of nuclear power and climate issues is one which would reduce us to living in mud huts and eating grass.
Green energy is all the rage, and Ohio is jumping on the bandwagon with little regard for financial considerations. The proposed offshore wind turbine project in Lake Erie is an example of wasteful spending in the name of going green and creating jobs.
Ethanol is the Frankenfuel of the energy business, a subsidy-devouring monster that cannot be killed, no matter how great the political opposition. Farm-state senators have apparently succeeded in adding an extension of the ethanol tax credit, which is scheduled to expire at the end of the year, to the tax bill now working its way through Congress.
While that news is disheartening enough, the wind-energy business - the electricity sector's equivalent of the ethanol scam - may also be winning in its effort to garner more federal subsidies.
But please do not support this Oahu industrial wind power plant on Lanai that is too expensive and has a negative cost/benefit to taxpayers, ratepayers and all Hawaii residents. It is an example of "green greed," that benefits the developers through artificial government tax credits and not the people of Hawaii.
He had been charmed by the spirit of our grassland, and kept coming back.
"They are doing an awful lot of damage to our quality of life, our mountains. I don't think it's going to lower the cost of energy. I think in 10 years we're going to be like Sweden and Denmark and we're going to be swearing at ourselves."
A landmark court ruling has ordered that Jane Davis be given a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home has been rendered worthless by a wind turbine 1,000 yards away.
This is effectively an official admission that wind farms, which are accused of 'spoiling countryside views and producing a deafening roar', have a negative effect on house prices. ...One of these impacts is of course safety. In June this year a 16-foot wind turbine blade smashed through a farmhouse roof in Northern Ireland as the farmer and his family slept inside.
By focusing on "landscape", however, the impression is given that it's largely the visual impact of industrial-size turbines that requires a "new approach" when, in fact, the whole environment is put at risk by ill-planned industrial wind-turbine development. ...For the Scottish Government's consultation on proposals for a Climate Change Bill to meet the real needs of Scotland's environment and the people, it's the depth of the environment that requires protection, not only its "world-class landscape".
Vermonters should stand up for the landscape that makes Vermont as special as it is. Vermonters should stand up to protect our land from those who wish to profit at our expense from perhaps the most valued resource we have: The beauty of our beloved Green Mountains of Vermont!
The John Muir Trust is a wild land conservation charity. SNH statistics show that the percentage of Scotland's natural landscape visually unaffected by built development dropped from 41% in 2002 to 28% in 2009.
This was mostly due to industrial-scale wind developments and infra-structure.
It's probably too much to expect, but, following the country's latest landslide or bog overflow, county councils and An Bord Pleanála should have more regard for people living in susceptible areas.
Despite the concerns of people in Derrybrien, Co Galway, regarding a wind farm in their area, planning permission was granted for it by An Bord Pleanála. Residents' worst fears came to pass when a landslide caused devastation in 2003. Fast forward to August, 2008, and a similar landslide involving 20 acres of bog in the Kielduff/Lyrecrompane area of Co Kerry. ...The Irish Peatland Conservation Council (IPCC), which aims to save Irish boglands, is calling on the Government to come up with a policy on the location of wind farms in sensitive habitats.
...since wind turbines generate at or above their average rate only a third of the time, and their output varies from minute to minute, it would not enable the reduction of other sources.
On Feb. 15, Larry Patton testified in opposition to HB 2842 (creating a "wind energy stimulus package"), and in opposition to RPS, eminent domain, and other incentives for wind development in the Flint Hills, before the House Utilities Committee.
It's imperative that local governments have to ability to adjust wind siting setbacks to protect their residents. This basic right and responsibility is available in every other state except Wisconsin.
To wit: is any modest climate bill worth the political cost, knowing they might not get any other bill passed this year or next?
Then, there's the question the utilities and green jobs advocates will have to answer: is this the market certainty they have been clamoring for?
With a majority of St. Lucie County commissioners opposing Florida Power & Light Co.'s plans to put three giant wind turbines on conservation land at Blind Creek Park, that part of the nine-windmill project is dead. Three cheers.
The project does not belong on land the county and state paid to preserve. ...St. Lucie's rejection would leave intact the principle that land bought for conservation is meant to be preserved. If FPL proceeds with the project on its own land, it should return a portion of the grant. If FPL drops the whole project, the whole grant should go back to the state.
Wind power in 2004 accounted for just 0.36 percent of the electricity generated in the United States, and solar power, even less - in spite of nearly $7 billion invested in research and development, and billions of dollars more paid out in tax credits, subsidies and other forms of support. Take away hydropower, and renewable technologies account for a tiny fraction of the electricity generated in the U.S. And while those percentages are probably on the rise at the moment, that's being driven not by a real market for these alternatives, but by government subsidies and renewable-energy production quotas, which foist the additional costs of these still-not-ready-for-prime-time technologies off on taxpayers or utilities customers.
If there was ever a sterling example of NIMBY (and I’m reluctant to use such a disparaging term when describing the legitimate concerns of citizens for their community) your position is it. I find it absurd that you consider the hills of western Masachusetts any less of a national treasure than Nantucket Sound, and suitable for “wind factories.”
I share your concern about the potentially serious effects of wind turbine generated pressure changes at significant distances from the site. The problem is similar to the premature application of 750 kV lines and the various US Navy projects that resulted in significant health problems because political and economic enthusiasm eclipsed perspicacious and informed decisions. I would recommend a delay in the construction and operation of wind turbines in your region until an objective environmental impact study is completed.
My first and only reason for opposing this wind industrial complex, Forward Energy, was the environmental cost to the protected migratory bird populations as well as the internationally recognized Ramsar identified wetland, the Horicon Marsh and the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge. ...When a mega-corporation buys its way through local, county and state governments to get what it wants, maybe it's time to take a serious look at those in charge.