Boone Pickens, Nacel Energy and Vestas Iberia have been issuing statements and placing print, radio and television ads, extolling the virtues of wind as an affordable, sustainable energy resource. Renewable energy reality is slowly taking hold, however.

To meet our peak demand of 56 gigawatts of electricity would require 112,000 turbines covering 11,000 square miles, or an eighth of Britain's entire land area, says Christopher Booker. ...Most alarming of all, however, in the desperation to reach EU "renewables" target, is the setting up of a new Infrastructure Planning Commission to force through thousands of these absurd objects over the wishes of local people and councils, who are now to be robbed of any right of appeal.

Does anyone else hear an echo of the ethanol boom from three summers ago? ...All of this makes the effort to erect two giant wind farms in Boone County, the state's second-windiest locale, worth watching. Putting in the 300-foot turbines is one thing in sparsely populated Benton County, but as Boone County's executive director of the area plan commission, Steve Niblick, said: "We are different than other counties with wind farms."

The Berkshire Natural Resources Council (BNRC) has pushed for wind-power siting criteria to ensure that all projects meet high standards for environmental review, production efficiency, and long-term economic sustainability. The proposed Act calls for the creation of standards, but only requires that they be met to the "maximum practicable extent." To grant ad-hoc exemption from standards compromises the objective of siting facilities in appropriate locations.

Now that the Cape Cod Commission is appealing the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board's approval of the proposed wind farm on Nantucket Sound to the state's highest court, it's important to consider the stakes involved. This is not about the merits or demerits of the project. The appeal is about the ability of a state board, made up of nine gubernatorial appointees, to overrule a regional authority simply because the project developer submitted an application to the Cape Cod Commission.

Wind power kicks in 0.05 percent of the state's power. In spite of this marginal contribution, there remains a widespread misconception that giant wind turbines, situated in the right locations, are a viable alternative. Unfortunately, big wind farms have prohibitive costs for infrastructure and construction and are inefficient. ...Huge, rotating 80-foot blades catch the wind and are connected by a mammoth driveshaft to convert mechanical power into electrical energy. This is like having a diesel locomotive balanced on a 200-foot pole.

Once again, you have made a farce out of the democratic process by remaining silent and secretive over the past seven years while avoiding a reasonable moratorium or making any comment on this matter until the last several weeks. Some serious realism and a sense of public purpose is needed, and not the arrogant and incompetent actions that seem to permeate this administration.

let me clarify your editorial assumption that I "oppose the wind farm." It would be more accurate to say that I am skeptical that the proposed project, and the several more that are sure to follow, will be good for Mineral County.

As taxpayers of Allegany County, Maryland and residents of Harwood Subdivision located adjacent to the proposed Dan's Mountain Wind Project, we are in favor of zoning regulations for industrial wind farms and support Code Home Rule Bill No. 2-09. The proposed regulations will play a vital role in providing protection to property owners that presently does not exist.

Revelations in today's Manawatu Standard about how Dr Smith came to his decision to "call-in'' Mighty River Power's consent application for its Turitea Wind Farm make for startling reading. Dr Smith's decision last year to take the consent process away from the Palmerston North City Council because it was of "national significance'' angered many Palmerston North residents, not least the council.

We do need to invest in technologies that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. But I believe we must do so with intelligence and not be seduced by vague or reckless promises that clearly do not stand up to scrutiny. Nor should we proceed with enormous public expenditures without appropriate due diligence and reasonable care, especially when it comes to the health and welfare of our fellow citizens and the future of our children.

Their responsibility is that they will listen to the discord and harmony of public discourse and determine the right direction for our public good. To emphasize, we expect them to listen. However, it appears they are failing to meet that expectation. When Mr. Smitherman hosts a town hall meeting and fails to reflect a basic level of empathy with his constituents, telling them the plant will be built regardless of what they have to say, he fails our expectations to listen.

Stutsman County officials should not be cowed by a wind developer whose business model condones theft of wind rights or be misled by a state legislator. They are to be commended for trying to protect landowner rights and safeguard the reputation of a growing and beneficial wind industry. If only our Dickey County Commission, the North Dakota Public Service Commission and the Legislative Assembly would show similar leadership.

Today we are faced with many issues regarding the previous ecological misuse of our planet. In our mad dash to correct the maligning of our environment we are grasping at alternative sources of energy: mainly wind, solar and hydro. Wind power is the concern of this letter, and Harley Lee's project on the Redington Range is the center of that concern. I wonder if, in our rush to seek alternatives to foreign oil, we may be overlooking our most valuable local natural resources.

DOC's job is to safeguard the conservation estate. Even after the former administration announced its whole-of-government support for Project Hayes, DOC might still have continued to press its concerns within government ranks. The suspicion is that, instead, it took the chance to extract $175,000 from Meridian. Fuelling this suspicion is the secrecy of the deal. Although Meridian says it was made public in mid-2007, it is curious that some environmentalists, such as Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, have only just learned of it.

We think the Waldo County Commissioners should convene a high-level forum on wind energy and invite people from all over the area. That way, Freedom residents who have experience with turbines and those from other communities that may well decide to welcome them can confer with both experts and each other. The goal could be a countywide approach to wind energy, though that might be getting ahead of ourselves. After the talk is over, at least we'd all be on the same page.

I am writing to express grave concern about the new Windmill law that will stop municipalities from controlling their own futures. This is particularly important to Prince Edward County. ...Lower property values and dropping tourism are things that we cannot afford and should not have to put up with. Why should the people of Prince Edward County have to sacrifice our new economy, our jobs, our lifestyle, for a provincial initiative that could place these turbines anywhere else in this huge province? The suggestion that this is "NIMBYism" is offensive.

What were the problems with Reunion Power's 24 windmills proposed for Cherry Valley's East Hill? Foremost, they presented an industrial use in a rural setting. Would a steel mill be appropriate on the rise above Route 20? Or a coal mine? Beyond that, there were concerns about noise, possible impacts on the health of people living in the vicinity, occasional transformer fires, interference with TV signals and degradation of property values.

The protracted Cape Wind saga is attributable to its advance-absent rules that Congress directed Minerals Management Service to promulgate by 2006. Emotion has instead driven the Cape Wind review and debate. The world's largest, United States-precedent, developer-sited, offshore wind project is undergoing an ad hoc review due to MMS' failure to comply with a congressional mandate.