There's a farmer in Northumberland County, east of Oshawa, who wants to build a house for his daughter on his farm, but he can't because he's on the heavily protected Oak Ridges Moraine. But it's OK to lease his land to a company that will put up multiple wind turbines and turn his property into a wind farm. And they'll pay him five figures a year to do it. That's just one of many contradictions emerging as wind project proposals multiply like rabbits across Ontario.

Let me get this straight. Central Maine Power is requesting a $1.4 billion upgrade of the transmission system from the Maine Public Utilities Commission. This transmission system will not benefit Maine because it is to increase transmission capacity between Orrington to the New Hampshire border right out of the state. I think that is about 125 miles. That's a pretty expensive project to take full advantage of wind power.

The battles over wind farms in Ontario and New York state have had no shortage of press coverage. The battle lines are most often drawn between those who place a premium on scenic and historic preservation, property values and other quality-of-life factors, versus those who place a priority on the personal and municipal income the wind projects offer. But the processes that decide these battles are seldom fair or transparent, and are skewed in favour of the few over the many.

Most of what the public knows about wind turbines comes from the media. Without a grounding in the sciences of thermodynamics and economics, the average person, eager to be politically and environmentally correct, fixates on the concept of "free energy," and closes his mind to further discussion of how expensive "free" can be. The public believes, more than it really knows, about wind turbines, and well-meaning advocates of wind as the solution to our climate and energy woes are unknowingly on a crash course with reality.

Iberdrola is threatening to pull out because Clayton is considering very reasonable requirements that will preserve the prized qualities of the town. Iberdrola's statement is mind-boggling to me. According to the article, "Iberdrola spokeswoman Jan Johnson said the company will use Maple Ridge as the example of responsible development ...Maple Ridge is a massive, visually dominating wind project in an area that is much different in character than the St. Lawrence shore towns.

There is considerable data now available to anyone with an open mind and objective perspective that clearly shows industrial wind generation has severe limitations as an efficient alternative-energy source. The experiments in many European nations as well as those in operation in the U.S. and now also including the Wolfe Island project which dramatically impacts this region can only boast at best a 20 percent to 25 percent rate of production.

Does anyone in Orangeville believe the Town Board is working for them? On Sept. 23 at the Town Hall it was obvious that we are being represented by a lawyer, not the Town Board. The wind turbine law that was voted on specifies that 450-foot turbines can be built 700 feet from your property line and 1,320 feet from your residence. Approximately 200 residents filed petitions objecting to these setbacks for health and safety reasons.

Virginia officials have long discussed placing wind turbines off the coast, but the first towers in the region are likely to appear farther south - in North Carolina's Pamlico Sound. Duke Energy and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill recently signed a contract to install one to three turbines in the sound west of Buxton and Avon as early as next year. The turbines would be seven to 10 miles from shore. The pilot project ...could position North Carolina as a leader in developing wind energy.

Over lunch with the top execs of Suzlon Energy, Andris Cukurs, CEO of the multinational's U.S. subsidiary, brought up Starbucks. Turns out there's something called the Starbucks Rule when it comes to siting wind farms. He said Suzlon and its rivals plot where Starbucks are in the general area and then make sure their project is at least 30 miles away. Any closer and there'd be too many NIMBYs.

Industrial wind turbines, utility-scale turbines -- whatever you call them, they are popping up all over the state. Minnesota is requiring utility companies to be using 25 percent renewable energy by 2025. When I ask most people what they know about turbines, most reply, "They are green energy!" When I probe for more information, they know nothing more. I'd like you to join me on a short journey to see what it is like to live near a wind project.

Let me argue that the first test of an energy policy for the new age is not "alternative energy" at all - but rather conservation first, then energy efficiency and decentralization of the power structure. Renewables should serve these ends rather than be an end in themselves that may, in fact, be mostly useless. Wind power is especially troublesome in that regard. Even if NSP reaches 25 per cent renewables by 2015 based on wind, it will not have cut 25 per cent of greenhouse gases, which, after all, is the main goal. It may not have cut much greenhouse gas at all, in fact.

Cash-strapped Britain is now facing a looming energy gap, priced yesterday by Ofgem at up to £200bn. This is the sum that may be required to build new energy infrastructure while meeting environmental targets. Who pays, you wonder. Well, you do, with the pain intensifying around 2015 when Britain shuts down its most polluting coal-fired power plants and our old nukes. Then, household bills could jump by 60pc - enough to make anyone's hair stand on end.

Is it right for the Town Council of New Shoreham to change the terms of a gift of land to the town, 31 years after the gift was made? This is the thrust of the public hearing on October 5, in reference to the windmill project proposed for the Transfer Station site. ...Numerous groups have bonded together to preserve more that 40 percent of this island. For those of you who enjoy these preserved areas, please realize that this kind of "spot zoning" sets a precedent that can put all of these, now public, areas in great danger. For those of you who may be thinking of donating land or are working toward the preservation and conservation of an area for a specific use - think hard - your dreams are in danger!

I am writing to express my desire to carefully review the wind turbine proposal for Winnebago County. As a resident, I want to see several things in our decision process. I would like to assure that we are taking into account that human development and environmental sustainability are both considered. A connected plan will best serve the long-term interests in our county. Let us use the direction of experts such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the available research.

Research indicates the best site for a wind turbine to be a windy spot in the middle of nowhere. Winnebago County is in no such location, nor is the name of my hometown Middle-of-Nowhere, Illinois! If an ordinance is to be written, and I acknowledge that this is necessary, let that ordinance be an innovative and original document. As is now presented, this ordinance is a cookie-cutter document provided by Navitas for the specific purpose of advancing that company's goals.

It is often said there are always two sides to any story. And generally I believe this to be true. But after five years in this chair I continue to strain to hear or comprehend the argument for wind energy-I have failed to hear a persuasive argument that explains why we had to ruin Wolfe Island and why we must do the same to Prince Edward County. I am still waiting.

Investment bankers are all aflutter with the onset of stimulus money for renewable energy projects according to the August 31 Wall Street Journal. After a long lag, numerous firms have again invested upwards of $100 million in wind farms. Investors are attracted by the quick returns made possible by the hefty federal grants and tax benefits. The growing subsidies for wind power mask wind's high cost and inherent limitations, but only for so long. ...Although appealing to many, wind power is an extremely expensive, inefficient, and unreliable source of electricity, incapable of providing base load power. Wind's intermittency, variability, line loss, necessary back-up generation, transmission needs, and dispatch complexity limit the amount of electricity wind can secure.

Policy fantasies are dangerous because they cause direct harm, replacing plans that might actually work, and because they spread economic illiteracy that can negatively influence future policies. ...Right now, one of the most dangerous policy fantasies is the distracting notion that government can create so-called green jobs and should strive to do so enthusiastically. While the principal proponent of the green jobs hokum, Van Jones, is now out of government, the idea still influences policy design.

Right now, the state is in limbo regarding renewable energy development. As Vermont has seen relatively little development of renewables, the guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable are less codified than in states already hosting thousands of megawatts of wind or solar installations. ...renewable energy is an area where thorough regulation of an industry is valuable, and our state has exactly the regulatory climate and environmental cachet to do the job.

Wind projects require government subsidies and inflated energy prices to be viable. When the full cost of subsidies, operations and government-mandated prices are considered, the consumer cost for green power substantially exceeds conventional energy. Despite all the hype, green power is not your friend.