Plans for more of the giant turbines have spun up a deep philosophical split between neighbors who favor or oppose wind farms. As more towers arose, so did big yard signs opposing wind energy ...On Tuesday, their attorneys, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, announced that town and its insurers agreed to pay the couples $30,000, plus $20,000 in attorney fees.

This situation comes down to who should control your property and neighborhood environment - residents or industry? The only way to take back the right to refuse risky, involuntary technologies is through statewide administrative code changes. Contact state lawmakers today to support a new code that gives you the right to reject these dubious installations.

It is alleged that many dozens of residents are in favor of the proposed project. Ironically the majority of the townships residents do not agree. Many homeowners in our township are extremely concerned that this project will in fact have a detrimental effect on our health, our property values and our environment.

Some of you may be aware that the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin appointed a committee of experts to create statewide wind siting rules, but may not know the majority of that committee benefits financially from the wind industry.

This means that wind and solar have to use more land, steel and ultra-long transmission lines, which reduces the projects economic viability and their ability to scale. They cannot compete.

When Florida Power and Light first proposed a wind farm to our family, the idea was to place a row of turbines on an area we call the high line. This sounded like an idea worth pursuing. Seven years later, with WE Energies in control, the project has 90 very large turbines in a scattered pattern that are invasive to everyone's environment in this area.

Kaukauna Utilities wants to install a pair of 20-kilowatt wind turbines on the west end of Kaukauna High School ...Sounds good in theory ...Still, there are questions to be answered.

Many unwilling people are being put in an industrial zone, where their health and property value can and will be negatively affected. We didn't volunteer for the war on global warming; we should not be drafted to suffer for it. Don't kid yourselves -as taxpayers and electrical ratepayers, you will pay for these projects.

The controversial decision about how close wind turbines should be placed from homes is now in the hands of the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council. Homeowners who live near wind turbines built in some wind farms in Wisconsin have complained about the turbines and effects including shadow flicker and noise.

Certainly it's splendid news that a Spanish windmill maker plans to build a factory in Milwaukee and employ 270 people. It's especially nice that the company mentioned the supply of experienced workers and engineers here. Of course, those people will supply a market that depends utterly on governments' favors granted at the expense of everyone else.

Pro-wind lawmakers claim that green energy jobs are the solution to our economic crisis. We need to widen the view of those with tunnel vision who are only focused on dollar signs and not able to see the negative impact of those who are left to live in the midst of an industrial pinwheel forest.

Local and state officials need to examine all of the potential costs and benefits - including the impact on neighbors - before granting final approvals for this project. And they need to keep an eye on the bigger picture involving wind and other forms of renewable energy. ...All voices must be heard and heeded before the shovels - and the wind blades - start turning.

For the past three weeks, my neighbors and I in southern Brown County have been grappling with the possibility of losing our health and our homes to a private wind-farm developer. ...The proposed industrial turbines would be placed as close as 1,000 feet from many peoples' homes.

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.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the taxpayers of Random Lake can spend their money whichever way they like, but as with many good sounding proposals, the devil is usually in the details. ...One question that came to mind is: Just what is the educational benefit of the wind turbine?

Will wind power ever make up 100 percent of our electrical needs? Not by a long shot. The wind isn’t reliable enough and you can’t just put up a 400 foot tall wind turbine anywhere. The location must be, well, windy. ...I took a detour and decided to ask a few residents who lived near the “wind mills” what they thought of them. I found out that they are controversial, and no one I talked to wanted their names printed.

Much as I like the idea of using these nontraditional methods for power generation, we need a dose of facts when anyone comes forward to propose such changes in power supplies. For example, wind is certainly a non-carbon source, but it's not a non-polluter. ...we also need to keep the "law of unintended consequences" in mind. We need to add these sources to both fossil and nuclear plants and traditional generation systems, which work without wind or sunshine.

It takes about 800 1,000-megawatt power plants or their equivalent to run the country on a daily basis. To be conservative, let's say 700 1,000-megawatt plants. Power demand in the United States goes up possibly a little more than 2.5% each year, but again, to be conservative, let's say 2%. This means we must build 14 1,000-megawatt power plants every year just to keep up. Kohler would have us build 7,000 2-megawatt windmills instead, blissfully ignoring the fact that the 14 1,000-megawatt thermal or nuclear power plants still would have to be built to fill the considerable gap left by non-operating windmills when the wind doesn't blow.

Now, how about a project that is 70% inefficient, could cost around $240 million of your tax money and does irreparable damage to environmental and housing economies, say, like a wind turbine farm? I support progress and the development of alternative sources of energy, as long as actual progress is being made. Common knowledge says that the wind doesn't blow every day. However, even if it is windy, the wind must reach speeds near 25 miles per hour for the turbines to operate efficiently. And if the wind flies above 55 mph, the turbine must be turned off. Thus, numerous studies have shown that wind turbines often are efficient only 30% of the time. Nobody would buy a television, car or computer that would work only 30% of the time. So why would we pay $3 million for a lemon?