It is unfortunate for the citizens of Massachusetts generally, and likely devastating to many residents of Florida and Monroe specifically, to witness the ill-conceived commitment of Gov. Deval Patrick and his administration to industrial wind turbines.
We have all heard much about the concerns relating to industrial wind turbines on our ridgelines. Our governor wants us to install industrial wind turbines as fast as we can in order to reduce our carbon footprint and thereby slow the rate of climate change.
Is the governor correct? Remove the "install industrial wind turbines" and substitute "do something prudent" and I agree. Is installing industrial wind turbines prudent?
Openness and transparency were among the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament - yet Holyrood has been found wanting.
It emerged almost by accident that last month the First Minister misinformed MSPs about the number of jobs created by his renewable energy drive.
Mr Salmond insists it was an accidental slip ...But that clandestine corrections procedure gives as much cause for the concern as the First Minister's somewhat shaky grasp of basic facts and figures.
We in New Hampshire will pay the price of having our scenic mountains covered in wind turbines while most of the profits go to an out-of-state developer and its investors.
If you agree that New Hampshire's Lakes Region should be preserved, send a letter to your legislator today. There are already three industrial wind farms in operation now with another three under development in New Hampshire
There will also be a panel composed of people who live near wind turbines here in Southeastern Massachusetts. I consider them the true experts in this matter, for they have accumulated many hours of exposure and can speak to its adverse effect on their health. I think everyone in the state of Massachusetts needs to listen to what they have to say.
The absolute best face that the Ontario Liberals can put on the decisions to cancel gas-fired power plants in Oakville and Mississauga, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to taxpayers, is that the government was "responding to local concerns."
This week, when confronting criticisms about industrial wind's assault of Vermont's mountains, he lashed out at critics, calling them "the committee against virtually everything."
Vermont needs an urgent and informed debate for dealing with climate change. Yet it is hard to have such a discussion when Vermonters who adopt views contrary to the governor's are dismissed with an imperial wave of the hand.
Worldwide, the blogosphere pulses with indignation about solar subsidies.
But the peculiar thing about all this wrath is how rarely it is directed at what is becoming a remarkably destructive aspect of renewable energy: its ability to drive down wholesale electricity prices.
"This used to be inundated with wildlife," Lourenco said. "There were deer, woodchuck, foxes ... "
Soon, this will all be fenced off behind a chain-link wall. The natural area to be destroyed will total 45 acres.
Who is responsible for this environmental disaster? You can blame this one on the tree-huggers themselves. All of this acreage will be sacrificed for so-called "green energy."
As an investor in and consultant to the battery industry, I'm delighted by the opportunities that intermittency abatement creates. My interests will thrive no matter who pays. As a member of an industrial society who thinks reliable electric power ranks right up there with shelter, food, water and a fast Internet connection, I want to ensure that the hidden costs of intermittency abatement are paid by the people who create the problem.
If Shumlin is indeed seeking the best interests for our state and not pandering to paid-for-political power, he can and should reflect upon industrial wind under the circumspection of the economic, ecological, and social damage caused by the broken promises from Yankee. There is a better, more thoughtful choice. A choice that begins with an immediate moratorium on industrial wind.
In 2008 candidate Barack Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs. He laid out a plan to invest $150 billion over 10 years that would advance a clean-energy economy built around biofuels, hybrid cars, low-emission coal plants, and renewable sources such as solar and wind. How many has he actually created?
What do these wind turbines represent?
Opportunism, for one. In return for investing in the wind project, GMP will receive $44 million in federal production tax credits over 10 years. Environmentalists pushed hard for those incentives, and you can't blame entrepreneurs for leaping at them.
The heated debate over large-scale wind power development atop ridgelines is reason enough to take a second look at the process.
Public Service Commissioner Elizabeth Miller agrees the current system might need to be updated. Miller told the Free Press, "It's not that the process isn't working now, but it was designed for far fewer projects at a different scale."
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.
This newspaper has argued that the PTC created jobs. That is wrong. It displaced jobs elsewhere, and it is a net destroyer of American jobs because it raised the price of energy for manufacturers. All the companies that must then pay higher electric bills have less money left over to hire employees and grow their enterprises, and consumers have less money to spend as they see fit.
Do none of these Mooney-like green zealots realise the idea of having one of these obscene blots [wind farms] on the landscape located close to you is about as attractive as living in the central reservation of your nearest motorway?
There is considerable evidence that shows these turbines are not just undesirable, they're positively dangerous.
Illinois, Bureau County, and my neighbors sold my property rights to the wind farm. The proposed wind farm in which my property is included has control of my privately-owned property. I have to ask for permission to build a house or a barn on my own land. I have been to informational and zoning meetings and never told my property rights were compromised, or that I would be restricted for the loss of freedom to use my property as I wish.
Recent articles about UD's wind turbine outage omit important essential facts and implications related to credibility, public safety, and liability.
In the future, historians will puzzle how landscapes, revered for generations, were destroyed by 100-metre-plus machines all over the country. ...Public relations for the wind industry has been magnificent in persuading conformists it is all right to erect machines in once valued landscapes.