Wind farm opponents will suggest Mighty River's motives for asking Mr Mallard to take the decision away from the PNCC are a sinister ploy to subvert the democratic process. However, the company is more likely motivated by pragmatism. If the decision is left with the PNCC and the wind farm is approved, it will almost certainly be appealed to the Environment Court anyway. Mighty River would no doubt prefer to cut to the chase. The decision-making process shouldn't be unnecessarily convoluted, but the people of Palmerston North must be given the chance to have their say and, more importantly, they must be listened to.

However, wind energy is not the panacea that its proponents claim. The true costs of wind energy include more than the upfront capital of $3 million per windmill, leases and noise pollution. The fact is the wind does not blow continuously. Consequently, redundant generating capacity must come from sources such as coal, oil and natural gas. The costs of operating and maintaining these plants at less than capacity must be considered.

Wind turbines are the latest popular "answer" to our country's energy problems with talk of three-bladed monsters covering vast areas from Texas northward. T. Boone Pickens is spending millions to promote his vision of generating 20 percent of our energy from wind power (although he refuses to install any of the turbines on his own 120,000 acre ranch). ...The variability of wind power makes it very difficult for power companies to integrate wind power into their grid and still maintain the stable power supply required to avoid user-operating problems. This is a particularly severe problem if wind power is a large portion of the total power output.

A few months ago, the Dallas area experienced rolling brownouts when a front moved through and the wind died unexpectedly, causing a large amount of wind-generated power to die out. Power plants had to scramble to get their gas- and coal-fired generators up to speed to offset the lost power when the wind generators dropped off. That's a problem because generating stations and their equipment do not take drastic changes in load easily, especially the big coal-fired plants. Equipment has to warm up, and keeping them "on standby" requires energy, in addition to "wear and tear."

Shame on you, Gov. Butch Otter, and every other representative for Idaho (including the Fish and Game) who is letting our Fish and Game regional supervisor take this in the backside and then deny that you've even done anything wrong. Don't you advertise for people to move to Idaho because of its wildlife? Why do you, governor, do commercials with the backdrop of eagles, wildlife and green pastures? And why does the governor's office need to OK a government employee's opinion to the editor? This isn't just Fish and Game's problem.

In his recent letter ("Wolf showed courage in supporting Cape Wind"), Elrick misrepresents the FAA's current position on Cape Wind and totally ignores the safety concerns of all three local airports. In fact, in a January 2008 letter to Rep. William Delahunt, the FAA cited a "presumed hazard determination" for Cape Wind due to concerns for local air traffic and radar interference to air traffic control systems.

Many thanks for the excellent lead story in the Monday, Aug. 18, issue of the Times concerning wind-farm corruption which affirmed what many suspected. But I fear the town of Clayton's nearsighted board members will overlook the article. They see only immediate profit from turbines and refuse to recognize long-term concerns about severe environmental, ecological and economic damage.

But had Bloomberg done the math, he'd know that even if Manhattan were topped by a solid block of windmills, they wouldn't come close to meeting the city's power consumption. Wind power has its place as a power source, but it's not a place at the top. It provides less than one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. electricity because it costs more to produce. The wind may be free, but the equipment is expensive. The costs are even dearer if you follow Bloomberg's other suggestion, namely floating windmills in the middle of the ocean. How many windmills does it take to meet the power needs of a typical city, much less New York City?

I was disappointed and alarmed that Dave was demoted by the department in a purely political move. Dave and his staff came under heat when the Magic Valley office opposed Cove Springs in Blaine County because of its negative wildlife impacts. In fact, Dave's job was threatened then when the Cove developers complained to the governor and his Fish and Game supervisors. This summer, Dave spoke out about the wildlife impacts of a large proposed wind farm and that brought the hatchet down, despite his having worked on hundreds of projects which were successfully negotiated.

Last month, the Magic Valley's regional Fish and Game supervisor, David Parrish, spoke his mind about how a proposed wind farm might injure wildlife. Parrish got demoted and transferred to Fish and Game's headquarters in Boise. But the real victim is the political independence of Idaho's wildlife agency and its staffers. ...He ran afoul of three Republican lawmakers - Rep. Stephen Hartgen of Twin Falls, who worked as a consultant on the project; Sen. Bert Brackett of Rogerson, whose nephew owns land on which part of the wind farm could be built; and Assistant House Republican Leader Scott Bedke of Oakley -- who complained to Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter.

As chairman of Responsible Citizens for Responsible Energy (RCRE), our stand has never been to ban wind turbines from Carteret County. As our name implies, our main goal is to obtain responsible siting in the pending ordinance. It is our elected and appointed officials responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Carteret County by adopting an ordinance which mandates a safe and responsible setback of wind turbines from neighboring homes and properties.

The destruction of lush forests full of life will only encourage global warming. The state's new Carbon Management Advisory Group (CMAG) Report notes that loss of forests to development causes a one-time surge of greenhouse gas emissions and eliminates the forests' future ability to sequester carbon. ...The wind industries target small rural areas ...Maybe it would be more beneficial to install them in every mall parking lot and big cities where there are no trees, plenty of noise to drown them out, and where the people that really want them can see them and enjoy them as much as they think they do.

The first issue is the high cost of wind power, which is about 2.5 to three times the cost of coal-generated power. Large wind-power projects exist only because of large government subsidies. Otherwise, wind power would be restricted to a few applications where the physical isolation of the electricity demand precludes extending the transmission network to the site. The other major issue is the intermittency of wind power. Even on the best of sites, wind turbines generate usable power less than 30 percent of the time ...T. Boone Pickens' claim that wind power will reduce the need for natural gas in electricity generation is spectacularly wrong.

There is a face-off brewing between two federal agencies over the fate of birds in Nantucket Sound, centering on the Cape Wind energy project. At issue is whether the U.S. Minerals Management Service defers to the cautionary advice of its expert peer, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, or will it ramrod the Cape Wind project forward, driven by political considerations? ...In the apparent hurry to permit the Cape Wind project this year, Minerals Management seems poised to ignore the Fish & Wildlife Service. Citizen action is needed to get the message across to Minerals Management: "Proceed with caution. Do not play 'wind turbine Russian Roulette' with endangered species. Move Cape Wind elsewhere, out of harm's way!"

Oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens is being disingenuous, telling one thing to the American people and another to Congress. He has repeatedly said that no government help is needed to pursue his plan to build the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle. Yet he is lobbying hard for extension of the Production Tax Credit and National Renewable Energy Zones -- essentially a huge tax shelter for wind industry investors and expedited eminent domain for transmission corridors. The real innovation here is the well-coordinated manipulation of public perception.

Some semblance of the Bush administration's notorious policy of silencing employees from speaking freely seems to have seeped into the personnel rules of Idaho Gov. Butch Otter. One casualty of Otter's speak-no-evil speech restrictions is highly regarded, longtime state Fish and Game Regional Supervisor Dave Parrish, who was demoted and transferred from Twin Falls to Boise after writing a letter to the editor of the Twin Falls Times-News criticizing the impact on wildlife of a proposed wind-power generating farm in the Magic Valley.

I would simply like simple answers to simple questions, i.e., what happens when the wind doesn't blow?; what happens when the wind blows too hard?; how many dirty power plants will be decommissioned as a result of embracing wind power?; how many projected new plants now on the books will be scrapped?; will the air over the Smoky Mountains become cleaner and clearer as a result of wind turbines?; will ozone alerts become fewer and farther between?; where are we going to put 300,000 wind turbines to meet the proposed goal of generating 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2025?

Mr. T. Boone Pickens has been very vocal regarding his support for solar and wind power to answer all our energy needs. They're both good ideas - to a point. They are renewable sources of energy, albeit a little unreliable. Still or cloudy days can be a little problem, and nightfall happens regularly, but everyone knows that the utility company with its hydro, steam and gas turbines will come to the rescue - or will it? Spinning reserves are expensive.

Iberdrola of Spain, owner of Elk River, realized over $9.9 million in PTC allowances in 2007. Foreign companies are not regulated by the Kansas Corporation Commission. There are no state or federal regulations of any kind on WECS. Few Kansas counties have wind regulations. WECS will force consumers to pay for their electricity three times; to build the WECS, build conventional power as backup, and additional transmission lines to carry power from the WECS to the grid. WECS will not produce large economic benefits to a community as evidenced by records from Gray County (Montezuma), or Butler County (Elk River). Elk River has produced seven jobs. Most employees live outside the community.

The wind is free, but the cost of harnessing its power doesn't come cheaply. Each wind turbine can cost more than $1 million. Transporting the power from western Oklahoma to the population centers is even more expensive. Texas, for example, is investing almost $5 billion to create its own transmission system.