But when quizzed by a shareholder about why they were selling off such good assets - selling the things investors had bought into BBW to own - BBW came up with entirely new reasons. Now BBW says the Spanish wind farm operation is a dog - a low-yielding asset that didn't produce and economic return. That's a little at odds with the glowing picture painted in previous reports. I'm not sure it was the smartest thing to say when the sale hasn't settled yet.

Yass Valley Council has reiterated its stance on wind farm projects, including its conviction that a national code should be established for the provision of all wind farms constructed in Australia. ...Councillors reiterated this stance at last Wednesday night's meeting. "There needs to be some clarity. We are not saying no to wind farms, we are just saying that conditions need to be put in place," Councillor David Needham said.

This morning BBW and BNB announced they were selling their 50/50 Portuguese wind farm joint venture to a Portuguese private equiteer Magnum Capital for $2.23 billion. A year after BBW bought its half from parent BNB, BBW is recording a loss of $11.7 million while BNB is claiming a small but undisclosed surplus over book value. But that's not really the point of this transaction. Everyone knows why BNB is selling - it rather desperately needs money to pay down debt.

If Environment Minister Trevor Mallard decides to call- in the consent application, it will be referred directly to a ministerially-appointed board of inquiry, or to the Environment Court. And it seems certain that Mr Mallard will indeed decide to call-in the application. Last month, after an editorial in this newspaper opined that to do so would undermine the democratic process, Mr Mallard quickly fired off a letter to the editor in response. He wanted to "correct the misinformation" and defend the process that would be applied if the decision was called in.

That Manawatu Standard has not taken a stance on whether MRP's wind farm application should be approved, but the outcome is too important to this region for the input of the people to be undermined in any way. The process must not only be fair, it must be seen to be fair. One of biggest battles MRP faced from the outset, whether it knew it or not, was public relations. After doing the dirty on the PNCC and the people it represents, that's one battle it now hasn't a hope of winning.

The Government has a policy to develop only renewable sources of energy. This seems noble from a "climate change" point of view. These renewable sources of energy include wind farms, hydro plants and geothermal generation. ...Wind farms do not provide constant reliable energy so can only make up a small amount of the total generation. One of my concerns is that this will mean more pressure to build hydroelectric dams. These hydro projects are extremely destructive for the local environment. ...If it is okay for China to build 50 more coal-fired stations a year then why can't we build one or two more? This will not make a shred of difference to global warming since we produce only 0.2 per cent of the world's CO2. It will provide reliable energy.

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.

What Meridian, TrustPower, Contact and others are proposing as essential development will in numerous instances look like rushed, irreversible destruction to future generations, who will regret our recklessness just as we regret the clear-felling of the giant kauri forests or the slaughter of whale populations for oil. Protecting future generations from these blind spots means carefully thought-out integration of renewable energy, with the intention of minimising irreversible impact.

Comprising 176 turbines, two-thirds the height of Auckland's Sky Tower, and requiring more than 150km of roads to build and service, it would be hundreds of kilometres from where the power is actually used. Instead of building appropriately scaled and sited wind farms further north, Meridian is asking Otago to sacrifice unique upland landscapes in the cause of a Muldoon-era Think Big project.

Wind Power claims "overwhelming" support from residents but won't hold a public meeting claiming it would be "hijacked" by opponents. It prefers "information sessions" saying the fact that no residents responded to advertisements for individual meetings showed local support, not distrust of the company, apathy or ignorance. Pyrenees Shire Mayor Lester Harris has offered to convene a public meeting.

Visually these huge structures have a colossal visual effect on the environment. They may be sleek and have good lines but so many of them pollute the landscape. Unfortunately, these eyesores are located in some of the most picturesque country in Australia because of the availability of suitable wind.

“The fine print on Meridian’s website says it has to purchase power off the grid from thermal generators to supply its customers during dry years, but claims these are offset by the purchase of carbon credits. These notionally avoided incremental emission units are being purchased from projects like Trust Power’s Tararua wind farm. “The idea that Meridian can magically convert thermal electricity into ‘certified carbon-neutral electricity’ by buying these sorts of carbon units is modern day hocus-pocus. ...“My worry with this sort of false advertising is that it creates the impression we don’t need thermal electricity in New Zealand. The reality is that there are times of drought, and when wind does not blow, when thermal power is the only way we can keep the lights on.

But as headlines turn from green profits to big banking losses, questions are being raised about whether an economic slowdown will depress rapid growth in low-carbon business. There was a nervy response to Shell's decision this month to pull out of the giant London Array wind farm, although the company insisted it was a business decision and not down to dwindling interest in renewable energy. The risk that a recession will hold back environmental investment trends seems obvious, as consumers and companies look to save costs and become more risk-averse, especially since many corporate commitments are voluntary.

These days we read and hear more and more about the exponential increases in renewable energy, particularly large wind farms such as those sprouting up on Colorado's front range and eastern plains. Colorado's Amendment 37 requires the state's largest utility companies to produce 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2015. A subsequent legislative action doubled that to 20 percent by 2020. ...This is all great news, right? Not if you are an independent grid system operator, and not if you're expecting all of this large scale wind power to help reduce global warming carbon emissions. Wind power is by nature a notoriously intermittent source of power. Wind simply doesn't blow steadily all of the time. Therefore, the power output of all large scale wind farms goes up and down dramatically throughout the day, regardless of the demand for power on the grid. ...Without energy diversity, the more renewable power we mandate, the more unreliable the grid will become. The laws of physics simply can't be amended.

But a new proposal for a deep-water, off-shore wind farm answers all the skeptics' objections and, in addition to its environmental benefits, could be an economic boon to southeastern Massachusetts. Blue H USA LLC has recently installed the world's first deep-water windmill off the coast of Italy and now wants to bring that technology to the South Coast, which has been referred to as the Saudi Arabia of wind energy because of its dependable North Atlantic winds. Rather than fight critics, Blue H has embraced their concerns and worked to satisfy them, maximizing the positives of the technology while minimizing the perceived negatives. The solution? Locate the turbines out to sea on floating - but stabilized - platforms similar to oil rigs, far away from any people or animals.

Last month, a group of 25 environmental activists staged an impromptu demonstration outside the Sydney offices of yet another global organisation. But this time it wasn't a multinational mining or oil company that was the target, but the environment group WWF. They were protesting against WWF's decision to partner with the coal industry, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the environment think tank the Climate Institute in working to accelerate the development of carbon capture and storage technology, otherwise known as clean coal. This was just the latest exchange in the simmering brand war between Australia's two biggest green groups, WWF and Greenpeace, revealing the widening ideological divide between conservationists and activists of the founding denominations in the broad church of the environment movement.

New Zealand relies on agricultural production for its sustenance, and that has not changed in centuries. And now as ever, there is friction where the edge of pastoral and agricultural production meets residential. As the Marlborough vineyards grow, increasingly the use of wind machines to keep frost at bay is annoying residents. Actually, it's angering them. They are hopping mad.

Wind energy opponents often rattle off a litany of objections: Windmills aren't aesthetically pleasing (a notion many dispute); they pose a danger to migrating birds; they're noisy; they're inefficient and expensive. But a new proposal for a deep-water, off-shore wind farm answers all the skeptics' objections and, in addition to its environmental benefits, could be an economic boon to Fall River. Blue H USA LLC has recently installed the world's first deep-water windmill off the coast of Italy and now wants to bring that technology to the SouthCoast ...It turns out answering the critics is actually a benefit to the technology, as 90 percent of the potential energy from wind is well offshore in deep water.

Royal Dutch Shell took a lot of flak when it pulled out of the huge "London Array" offshore wind farm in the U.K. last week. The prevailing explanation for the withdrawal? Higher oil prices make old-fashioned energy a more attractive investment than still-immature renewable energy. Perhaps there's a less-conspiratorial explanation. Maybe offshore wind power just isn't up to snuff yet. Denmark's Vestas, the world's biggest wind-turbine maker, today said Europe should curb its enthusiasm for massive offshore wind farms, and focus on regular onshore wind power.

One litre of solid or liquid fossil fuel contains tens of thousands of times the energy of one litre of wind-turbine air moving at 20 knots, the speed needed for viable large wind turbines. A 2000mw steam station using compacted fossil fuel can be housed in a single building. Large turbines in suitable wind can generate about 10mw per sq km of land, so it needs 200 sq km to replace that coal station if wind blew continuously, but more to compensate for periods when some turbines are becalmed. ...The above large magnitudes should be borne in mind. Solar energy cannot be harvested in small structures, so they will always be highly visible.