Solar and wind now are the darlings of "new green economy" advocates for producing solar panels and wind turbines are supposed to replace lost manufacturing jobs from industries such as steel and automobiles. Never mind that solar energy has been shown to have only limited applicability and that the best wind farm in the world only operates 30% of the time. American taxpayers would be better served by being told the truth by politicians, rather than the economic nonsense that surrounds the hype regarding the green economy.

The negative prices appear to be the result of the large installed capacity of wind generation. Wind generators face very small costs of shutting down and starting back up, but they do face another cost when shutting down: loss of the Production Tax Credit and state Renewable Energy Credit revenue which depend upon generator output. It is economically rational for wind power producers to operate as long as the subsidy exceeds their operating costs plus the negative price they have to pay the market. Even if the market value of the power is zero or negative, the subsidies encourage wind power producers to keep churning the megawatts out.

Once a booming industry thanks to sky-high oil prices, the feel-good trend, carbon reduction and subsidies, the financial crisis has pushed investors to give up on green energies, and like the dot-com bubble of 2000, some analysts say it's about to burst. ..."I think economic reality will kill the green industry," said Mr. Buckee, who now lives in Britain and lectures on climate change. Solar energy isn't alone in its woes. Wind, biomass, biofuel and other "clean-tech" companies are getting pasted too as the financial crisis sends investors fleeing from technology names, dries up credit and freezes the IPO market.

When the turbines started up near her home, in Shelburne, Ont., Helen Fraser suffered severe health effects. ...The latest ad from Sky-Power [a developer of renewable energy projects], states: "In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 turbines installed around the world, no member of the public has ever been harmed by wind turbines." ...So who is telling the truth?

Over the last couple of years, concerned citizens all around Jefferson County have sponsored informational sessions on wind turbine issues. These sessions have brought out the facts and the health hazards of placing wind turbines where people live. ...The facts are there and the facts are being stepped over to pick up money our Congress has made available for renewable energy. This is your money, and this is just another giveaway program for an inefficient source of energy. We need to channel our tax dollars into the development of real fuel-cell technology for cars and trucks.

When debating wind energy, there is one point we can all agree on: there are sites suited for wind energy and sites that are not. Our beautiful township is not suitable. The moratorium passed unanimously by our Township Council reflects this. One visit here and it will be clear to you. ...The point is, Mr. Smitherman, our main industry is tourism and recreation. Visitors drive for several hours to enjoy the sense of wilderness our beautiful township offers. They come here to get away from industry. Please understand, this township's livelihood and way of life depends largely on the natural beauty of this land.

All speculative bubbles have a kernel of truth behind them to justify their existence. This time around it was China and India. These emerging Asian giants were gobbling up all the commodities the world could produce to fuel their rapid industrialization. It wasn't that the story was untrue; it was old. Growing global demand probably was the reason for the gradual rise in oil prices from $20 a barrel to $40 earlier in the decade, and even to $60 by mid-2005. It was the moon shot to $147 that took on a life, and a litany, of its own.

Obama has put energy policy at the forefront of his agenda. He says that his plan will boost our national security, help us achieve "energy independence," reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote job creation. Indeed, Obama vows to create around 5 million new jobs by increasing federal spending on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels. As many experts have observed, the science behind the Obama plan is dubious. ...The renewable energy industry simply does not have the capacity to power large swathes of our fossil fuel-driven economy.

As we stood on Telegraph Road in the Town of Eagle, looking at a landscape of turbines erected by Noble Environmental ... one turbine in particular almost seemed to whistle. The rest of them raised a steady whoosh, whoosh, woosh. Maybe it was just one errant whistling turbine, and a field of them may be scenic, but what if New York fulfills its alternative energy goal, and there are thousands of these 400 foot towers in the upstate countryside? Would you live next to one?

I am writing this to make clear my vehement opposition to the wind turbine proposed by Mark Richey Woodworking. It will be constructed in the Newburyport Industrial area at 40 Parker St. I do support renewable energy but I feel that the location for this turbine is a highly unsuitable one. I do not believe that the Newburyport Zoning board (ZBA) thoroughly investigated the impact that these projects would have before approving them. This turbine will have a direct and very negative impact on the neighborhoods that surround them.

I am extremely opposed to the location of the 300-foot, high wind turbine at the Mark Richey property, 49 Parker St. I am not opposed to alternative energy but, just as the discovery of X-rays had everyone getting new "pictures" taken, to later discover the ramifications of incorrect use of this technology, we cannot build enormous hazardous turbines in such close vicinity to habitable structures industrial and residential.

The long-awaited full report on the Horse Creek Wind Farm noise study will go public in a week, the town announced Wednesday. But the availability of the report was not enough to satisfy upset residents who stormed into the council meeting demanding that the town start formulating a local law to limit noise levels of wind turbines and establish setbacks. "We need to start clearing the air," said Patricia Booras-Miller, vice president of Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization of Jefferson County.

Do you live inside an industrial wind farm? I do. I live within the Forward-Invenergy project. It is a tremendous invasion of our life style and a horrible happening to our area. My wife, our 13-year-old son and I have experienced headaches, nausea, light headedness, lack of sleep because we hear them in all rooms of our house ...I trusted the elected officials of the town and county and the state's public service commission. That was a terrible mistake. If you allow large industrial limits closer than the set backs I mentioned above you will regret it. It will divide your community.

It was noted that there are always costs that must be mitigated when producing power for our consumerist lifestyles. One glaring omission from the meagre list of negatives to wind power is the pollution of noise and its sequela. These generators are very noisy. Research into sound pollution is not complete and its effects on both human and wildlife must be considered. ...We must do a full environmental assessment on how the sound vibrations will affect life within its footprint, just as we would any other technology.

Of the proposals under consideration, at least one would be off the coast of Ocean County, 18 miles from Long Beach Island. Although a study prepared for the BPU noted the impact of wind farms off the Jersey coast on the fishing and tourism industries would be temporary and relatively minimal, it indicated there was far greater sensitivity to the visual impact of wind farms in Ocean County than in Cape May and Atlantic counties. The BPU should take that into account. ...The projected loss of tourism revenue would drop off dramatically if wind farms were located 6 miles or more off the coast.

First of all, I want to say that Cape Vincent's Town Supervisor Tom Rienbeck is doing the right thing. I never thought I would ever say that, but I saw firsthand what he is trying to do for the town. He has appointed a committee of local residents to hammer out a wind-turbine zoning law. They are working from a draft document written by the town's law firm.

Why are wind turbines being rammed down the throats of people who don't want them? They are fine for people who want them, but if their neighbors don't want that noise, why isn't there help for them? I know people who are being forced to move because their neighbor wants the turbines, and the company is putting them within 500 to 750 feet from the home of the people who don't want them.

The Wall Street Journal recently noted that increasing wind power to 20 percent in the next two decades alone would require a $2 trillion investment. Energy costs already strain household budgets, especially those of lower-income families and individuals. This year, U.S. households bringing home less than $50,000 a year - that is, half of households - will spend a quarter of their after-tax income on energy, double the percentage they spent in 2001.

A landmark court ruling has ordered that Jane Davis be given a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home has been rendered worthless by a wind turbine 1,000 yards away. This is effectively an official admission that wind farms, which are accused of 'spoiling countryside views and producing a deafening roar', have a negative effect on house prices. ...One of these impacts is of course safety. In June this year a 16-foot wind turbine blade smashed through a farmhouse roof in Northern Ireland as the farmer and his family slept inside.

Whether the reports of health hazards are true or not is almost irrelevant. Just the fact that many people are truly concerned about the potential health effects of living near a wind farm, or the electromagnetic radiation from high voltage electrical wires, is reason enough to try to avoid buying a property that is close to power lines. It's a simple law of economics: As demand for a product goes down, so does its price. When you have a certain number of people avoiding a certain property, for whatever reason, the price of that property will be negatively affected.