Much has been written about the merits or demerits of wind energy as a viable source of electricity generation for meeting the growing needs of electricity consumption in the United States. No matter which side of the debate one comes down on, one issue is crystal clear. Trillions of taxpayer dollars are being poured into the wind energy corporations' coffers to enhance the return on investment strategies with a guaranteed commitment by federal, state and local governments for a 10-year period. According to a recent report by the National Renewable Technology Laboratory (DOE), wind energy could account for 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030. To reach this target, wind turbines would have to produce 300,000 MW of power or 1,000,000 MW installed capacity. The 500,000 plus wind turbines would cost the taxpayers between $5-7 trillion.

We like the idea of wind power because it seems natural and clean. Windmills, after all, are part of our pastoral vision of Americana - power, nostalgia and patriotism rolled into one. What's not to like? Only the economics. Wind power, despite the government's best efforts to create a market, continues to be dogged by the same problems it always has: high costs, limited reliability and bad location. No wind, after all, blows forever, and when it does, it's not blowing where people need power. Even now, West Texas wind farms sit idle, awaiting new power lines to take high-priced power to the people.

[L]et's take a closer look at the wind business to figure out why America isn't already running on free wind power. One reason of course is that Americans are spoiled and want the power to be on all of the time. ...That is a problem when the wind doesn't blow all of the time.But more importantly, if you do the math, the investment in this part time power plant alone, neglecting transmission, profit, and operating overhead, is $13,000 per home. I say part time, because we must remember that someone has to own the backup power plant that isn't making any money when the wind is blowing. Solar in some ways is even worse when it comes to the massive arrays and land necessary to place them on. And like wind, solar is not full time, science has not figured out how to keep it from getting dark at night. I am certainly not against technology, just so long as we get the whole story. Like ethanol, we can burn our food supply, but not without repercussions.

Wind energy proponents extol wind as free, safe, and clean, but these characterizations miss the point. Energy users expect reliability, and challenges dot the path from wind to electric grid to energy consumer. For wind turbines to produce power, the wind must blow. Because the wind does not blow constantly, wind turbines produce a fraction of their potential generating capacities. Furthermore, winds blows the least during the summer months when electricity is needed the most. ERCOT relies on just 8.7 percent of wind power's capacity when determining available power during peak summer hours. Also, due to wind's intermittency, those relying on wind farms must rely on conventional power sources to back up their supply. Wind's variability and its lack of correlation with peak demand highlight a major challenge for wind energy ...Wind energy also comes with legitimate environmental concerns.

"One windmill will not put out much noise, but when you put a cluster of them together and get the blades all spinning at the same rate, then it begins to emit noise -- enough that our radar can 'hear' the noise." You could tell the radar to ignore that frequency, but if there's a thunderstorm with the same frequency, it also would be ignored. "The use of wind energy has become a big problem not only in the meteorological world, but also to the military community as airplanes could fly low under a wind farm and one would never know the difference as to whether they are looking at false returns from the wind farm or an enemy plane."

The opportunity to leave a lovely legacy of untouched mesas and unscarred precious land lies in the hands of our government and local commissioners. This mind-boggling decision is being foisted on Texans because of a crass lack of legislation regulating what could result in more destruction than an atomic bomb. Every ridge in our beloved land will soon be covered by Godzilla-like machines replacing every bit of nature with industry. What will be left for our future generations?

Now that wind is big enough to be a real part of Texas' electricity mix, the state is coming to grips with one of wind power's biggest problems: the power flows only when the wind blows. ...Nuclear, coal- and gas-fired plants run almost all the time. As efficient as wind turbines have become in recent years, they still need the wind to work. And reliably predicting just when the wind will blow is still tough, despite plenty of fancy technological advances. ...This problem is only going to get bigger for Texas. The state has 4,600 megawatts of wind power. If wind blew all the time, that would be the equivalent of more than three nuclear plants. The state now is considering additional wind farms that could boost that figure ten-fold, say Texas' grid operators. That is, when there's a breeze.

If anyone wants to see what these windmills can do to ruin a beautiful view, try taking a quick trip up IH-20 and Highway 84 between Sweetwater and Snyder. That used to be the highlight of my drive from Dallas to Lubbock, to see the beautiful ridges and hills off to the southwest. It has now been ruined with hundreds of massive windmills. ...I would hate to see it ruined because a few folks see a way to make a little money for a few years.

During the past few weeks, the developers of these proposed wind energy generation facilities, Babcock and Brown and PPM, have made statements at public meetings and in the media insinuating that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife and environmental groups have vetted and approved their plans to install more than 500 wind turbines ...Nothing could be further from the truth. ...USFWS, TPWD, the Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense have all sent letters either to the developer or to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, pointing out potential problems or requesting a full environmental assessment prior to construction.

The Texas Hill Country, home to the world's largest remaining bat colonies, has been the focus of proposals for wind energy projects. We are deeply concerned about the potentially serious consequences to Hill Country wildlife - ironically, from an energy source commonly promoted as "green." ...While we feel it is the private landowner's decision whether to participate in wind energy development, overarching concerns for wildlife create a need for caution. Development of wind energy in areas of high wildlife usage, such as certain Hill Country and Gulf Coast sites, should be avoided until credible scientific documentation of threat levels and solutions has been gathered. ...The environmental consciousness demonstrated by AES SeaWest in the Hill Country must be emulated throughout the wind-energy industry. Companies that put wildlife at risk cannot claim to produce "green energy."

San Antonio and Texas are facing an unprecedented need for new power supply. Even with aggressive energy efficiency, additional power will be needed to keep our lights on and our economy competitive in the face of rapid growth. Based on ERCOT projections, the state will need at least 30,000 megawatts of additional power - the equivalent of 24 million homes - by 2025. And that is before taking into account any retirements of older and less efficient plants. ...A new era of low and no carbon energy generation is about to begin and Texas is in the lead. Let's do it right and do it now.

For all the benefits that wind power could bring, it's important to understand the very real impact these industrial wind power projects would have on this sensitive area. Roads and turbine construction would fragment more than 60,000 acres of undeveloped habitat. Each windmill covers more than an acre of airspace as its 100-foot blades spin, and each turbine requires 1,000 tons of concrete to anchor it to the ground. This project would include more than 21 miles of new electrical towers to support the high-voltage transmission line. More roads, more cranes, more impact.

The Coastal Habitat Alliance, which is fighting a massive wind farm proposed for the Kenedy Ranch in South Texas, has raised some troubling, not terribly well-studied problems with wind power - namely it may take a toll on wildlife. As it happens, the Kenedy Ranch is smack dab in the middle of one of the most important corridors for migratory birds in the U.S., a sort of feathery superhighway. ...the Alliance's demands are pretty simple - before the PUC grants a permit to build the 21-mile, high-voltage power line, they want a study commissioned on the impact to the birds, bats and bees.

For at least two decades, environmentalists have been pushing the concept of developing clean alternative energy sources, clamoring for greater employment of solar and wind power to generate electricity. They have chided and chastised private industry, government and virtually anyone else who would listen, in an effort to hammer home their solar- and wind-energy mantra.

At issue is whether a plan to locate two wind farms along the Texas coast poses a threat to migratory bird species that often use the coastline as a way station on their journey south. The massive turbines, whose blades each measure 100 feet or more, could catch birds as they fly south and potentially alter a rich ecosystem that houses dozens of endangered and threatened species and a diverse landscape.

HR 3089 seeks to combine several policy components into a single strategy of weaning this nation off its foreign-oil habit - which has resulted in the United States importing 60 percent of all the fossil fuel it uses each day.

It is important to recognize that Europe, the birthplace of modern-day wind-farm technology, is revising some of its most ambitious projects. The Netherlands and Germany have scaled back major projects after well-documented research suggests wind farms are not all they are promoted to be. With that said, wind farm technology may have a place in the effort to develop alternative energy supplies. Random efforts, however, to score a quick buck or tax deduction by embracing this politically correct energy source are risky at best and can be very damaging in the short and long term. State and federal governments would be well-advised to consider a reasoned public policy in developing industrial wind project technology. They can start by enacting into law a simple permit process to ensure the environmental concerns of the entire area are considered before the turbines go up and the human and natural environment brace for the aftermath. No such law or regulatory structure exists in Texas. Shame on us.

Wind power does not, in fact, live up to the claims made by its advocates. Its impact on the environment and people's lives is far from benign. Research also reveals that there is a very cozy relationship between fossil fuel plant owners and wind factory owners. The reason is simple: the more you build wind factories, the more you must build fossil fuel plants. Wind factories cannot operate without standby fossil fuel plants. What a scam! They lead people to believe they replace fossil fuel plants, but the truth is that they perpetuate them! How soon people forget Enron's smoke-and-mirrors business plan. If Jerry Patterson's vision of the Texas coast is one full of wind turbines, then perhaps Texas needs a new land commissioner.

Every energy source has its price, whether it be noxious emissions, radioactive waste or scenic blight. Regulating wind power sites to mitigate danger to wildlife and to preserve treasured scenery should be a given as Texas charts its energy future.

To meet the demands of a rapidly swelling population, Texas needs to expand and diversify its electric generation capacity. It also must build cleaner, less polluting power plants. That's why it is good to see TXU propose to build as many as six nuclear power reactors at up to three sites.