The passionate advocacy of wind and solar power cannot change the fact that they are in their infancy and incapable of providing most of our power needs. Neither can the environmental activist's vision of a world in which all live simpler lives without the need for so much power be anything but a fantasy which no developing nation would ever take seriously. The reality is that without our being allowed to discuss all power generation options, the eco-activist's dystopian vision of New Zealand risks coming true.

In a case of putting the renewable energy bandwagon before the horse, Congress might soon impose stringent renewable energy production quotas on every utility in the country without doing anything to clear the way for a major expansion of the electric grid. These one-size-fits-all mandates - which require every utility to generate 15 percent of power from wind, solar and other "renewables" by 2020 - are misguided on a number of levels. But without a concomitant expansion of the transmission system, and without the construction of conventional power plants to back up these intermittent energy sources, this amounts to a fool's errand.

I have read Gamesa's Mr. Michael Peck's and Mr. Tim Vought's articles in the Daily American. I would like to comment on a few of Mr. Peck and Mr. Vought's observations. Mr. Peck stated, "Any claim made that Gamesa did not provide accurate information to the Windber Area Authority to review is false." The real truth of the matter is the Windber Area Authority did not receive any useful information concerning this project that anyone could make a qualified decision on given the massive scale of this project until our March 14 meeting, when we got the plans from a private citizen who obtained them from the Somerset Conservation District. If anyone says anything differently then they are speaking with a forked tongue.

While the process of formulating that policy is under way, all wind applications must be put on hold. Fenland is now on the tipping point of total rural landscape and skyline industrialisation. I say enough is enough.

While the price tag was the final straw for Law, the momentum to stop the project grew from the tenacious grassroots opposition of those who lived near the beach, which in turn motivated their elected officials to turn up the heat on LIPA.......Siting a wind park visible from the sands of Jones Beach, the closest thing Long Island has to sacred ground, was a mistake.

When will these companies realise that Highland Perthshire is not the place for wind farms of any size? This is a magnificent area visited by tourists from across the globe. It should not be the site of an industrial generating plant.

Add to this the damage to the tourism industry, and the whole concept of ranks of wind turbines across the roof and shores of Wales, producing intermittently and unpredictably amounts of electricity far less than developers lead us to expect, seems utterly foolish, especially when there are much less damaging ways to produce electricity (in which Wales is self-sufficient, in any case).

As a veteran of the wind turbine war over East Hill in Cherry Valley, I have advice for residents of Fulton and Richmondville.

Electricity is so cool. Always there for us, at the flick of a switch. But where, exactly, does it come from? And what gets hurt on its way? When deciding how to generate power, this much is clear. Oregonians don't like nukes. Too scary. And they don't like coal. Too dirty. They're not even sure about liquefied natural gas. What is that stuff, anyway? Hydro? Sure, Oregonians used to like hydro. But that was then: before salmon started disappearing by the gazillion. This is now: We're tearing out dams, not building new ones. But wait, here comes the answer: blowing in the wind. Make that in the safe, reliable, clean, green, free, fish-hugging wind. We all love windmills, right? But hang on there, Bub. What about loving windmills in your backyard?

This whole EFSEC process has only shown how totally corrupted the siting of energy facilities has become in Washington state. If Gov. Gregoire wants to really show that "local sentiment about this project is just as important to her as it was for the Wild Horse Project," then a good first step would be to deny the KVWPP as designed and then appoint a new EFSEC chairperson that will not accept the role of mouthpiece for any special interest business group that may want to make an obscene amount of money on the backs of non-participating land owners. If this project is the precedent for siting renewable energy projects in the future, no one will win. Litigation will become the norm and commercial wind power will become even more economically unviable - if that is even possible.

The six-year battle around Cape Wind is clear evidence that this project is deeply flawed. The conflicts that its location in Nantucket Sound presents to our economy, our environment and public safety are irresolvable, and a better site for the project needs to be identified. It is disappointing to see an elected Cape and Islands representative, Matt Patrick, offer such unqualified support for a project that would come at a great cost to the constituents he represents. The time has come to seek a consensus on a site outside of Nantucket Sound where a wind project can be built without damaging such a venerated national attraction. We look to Patrick and others in the Legislature to take up the challenge and find a win-win scenario, so that real progress can be made toward siting a commercial scale offshore wind facility. People may turn a deaf ear to the bickering that characterizes the Cape Wind conflict, but they would welcome a win-win solution to the problem, if only politicians like Rep. Patrick would pave the way.

Comparing Allegheny Ridge to Shaffer Mountain is like comparing apples to oranges. And these differences are the reason Gamesa's industrialization of this section of Shaffer Mountain will be stopped. It's all about the siting. The siting of these industrial facilities, if not regulated soon, may well doom the ablility of industrial wind to reach its full potential. The people of the Commonwealth are not going to stand for the destruction of the last of our highest quality wild habitats, especially when we have hundreds of thousands of acres of reclaimed strip mines, with great wind, that have already been destroyed.

The PSB attached a number of conditions to their approval of the project. As the Ridge Protectors, a group of people who have opposed the project for years, say, the attached conditions contain potential deal breakers and they intend to fight the actual project to the bitter end. We are with them. The Sheffield voters, when they approved the project for an entirely illusory tax benefit, sold the Northeast Kingdom's birthright for a mess of pottage. Assuming The Ridge Protectors prevail and the project is stopped, these same voters, when they discover the taste of pottage, will be thanking them.

As someone who lived in Scotland for many years I was absolutely delighted when I read my RSPB "Bird" magazine, and would like to quote an article from this month's August edition entitled Lewis windfarm update: "With the period for comments on the Lewis wind power proposal now closed, we are delighted that the Scottish Executive received almost 11,400 objections and only 59 letters of support. This represents the level of opposition both locally and across the UK to this damaging proposal. "We will continue to press the new Executive to turn down this application or hold a public inquiry to consider the issues in more detail."

Our position is steadfast that the locations of wind turbines need careful study, especially in New England with our heavily populated cities and towns. The inherent quality of life and the rights and privileges of the many residents negatively affected by these turbines cannot be ignored in our pursuit of alternative energy. Please visit Windwisefairhaven.com and listen to the Hull residents we visited and you will see that they do not all think their turbines are a great thing as Mr. Sweeney leads you to believe. I advise everyone concerned to please do the research.

We urge you contact your County and Town officials and demand an open process and fair evaluation of wind turbine proposals. Attend public hearings and demand that the interests of the community are considered before the interests of the wind power companies. Finally, ask yourself if it is fair and acceptable to force your neighbors to live next to an Industrial Electrical Generating Facility that did not exist when they purchased or built their homes. Also please consider it is the wind power companies attempting to change the status quo, not homeowners that would have to see, hear and live with turbine and the inconvenience of the large construction project. If this is allowed to happen, what's next?

The bitter battle that is being fought over the proposal to build a wind farm at Edinbane, on the Isle of Skye, has stepped up a gear. After several years of deliberation, against the background of a debate that has sharply divided public opinion on the island and further afield, Highland Council granted consent for the 18-turbine development in May. The Skye Windfarm Action Group Limited (SWAG) has moved the battle to a new front: the Court of Session. SWAG is arguing that the planning authority acted unlawfully in granting planning permission and the permission for the wind farm should therefore be quashed.

As an example of how the system can be abused, Patrick administration officials like to point to the challenge to the Hoosac range wind farm in the Berkshires. State officials believe that area residents who have aesthetic objections to the wind turbines have focused on plans for the service roads to the ridge site as a way to delay or possibly block the whole project. But, whatever the motivations of the residents challenging the plans for the roads, they will cross streams in 10 places and merit an intense review process.

Tiny turbines on short towers may make people feel good about generating "green energy," but they make no sense economically. The fact that the real cost may be hidden or spread out over millions of payers does not change the basic economics.

In the last several months my neighbours and I have directly spoken to many people whose lives have been affected by wind energy projects. It seems like there is not a project out there, large or small, that leaves a community unaffected. We have most recently heard from Pastor Mark Harris of Mars Hill, Maine. Pastor Harris was here at the Seventh Day Adventist camp on the Gulf Shore this week. This camp sees an average of 1000 people per week through the summer season. There is only one wind farm in Maine, and it is on Mars Hill. There are 20 families whose lives have been seriously and detrimentally affected by this project, built by UPC. Some turbines are extremely close to families. Complaints have been made from people living as far away as three miles.