Beware, Washington voters — wind power is too good to be true. Approving the November ballot initiative [I-937] won't solve a thing. The current hype over wind power's credentials as a "clean and renewable" source of energy is belied by wind power's Achilles' heel — its intermittency. This fundamental flaw limits both wind energy's capacity value and its impact on emissions.

Why advocates want the return to the power of wind turning a blade is part environmental commitment and part attraction of the wind-farm industry to substantial federal subsidies. This is both the age of sail and the age of sale.

Good public policy promotes desirable social and economic change cost-effectively. Government programs, however well-intentioned, tied to bad ideas are bad policy. Such is the case with federal and state programs promoting industrial wind energy.

Intuitively, though, it feels like there's something wrong with this picture. When you stop and think about it, the whole idea of driving a car, paying money into a green kitty to offset the CO2 from burning the gas, and then calling the car trip carbon-neutral, is ludicrous.

Suppose you wanted to make a bundle in the electric energy business in the little state of Vermont. How would you go about it? The old-fashioned way would be to generate electricity at a lower cost than your competitors. But forget that – too demanding. Here’s another way: get the federal and state governments to rig the deal in your favor.

To begin with, UPC would have absolutely no interest in wind energy if they weren't in line to receive enormous tax subsidies to do it. Wind energy from Vermont ridgelines hasn't a possibility of being produced at competitive prices with even the most expensive of traditional energy sources. Without the subsidies, wind energy in Vermont is an economic joke.

Estimates for developing the Sheffield and Sutton project exceed $100 million. Up to two thirds of that is offset by federal subsidies, which we pay for. Over $60 million. A pretty good motivator.

Your carbon footprint? Carbon offset-buyer beware. It’s a gimmick designed to part you from your money without providing any measurable environmental benefit.

And despite Patt's irrelevant discourse on the difference between REC and cap-and-trade systems, the charge still stands that the primary driver of investment (and interest by utilities) in large-scale wind power is the potential profits from REC trading in a tight market.

...neither ScottishPower nor energy minister Allan Wilson bothered to mention that it will cost electricity users more than £700,000 a week (£38m per year) in subsidies (equivalent to £190 per "household" per year).

By paying too much, the Ontario government is encouraging inefficient power production in a way that will give renewable energy a black eye with consumers.

But most of the those who are pumping money into the alternative energy sector -- and investing heavily in ethanol, wind and solar power -- are just shrewd people, who understand that it's hard to go wrong when Uncle Sam is helping hedge your bets and guarantee a return on investment.

If wind energy really is the energy of the future, as the developers claim, it must prove itself in the market without government subsidies. This has not yet happened anywhere; the projections are all based on artificial models with hidden costs -- costs for you and me, the taxpayers and consumers.

Let me be clear from the start - we are not opposed to renewables. Our companies have been the beneficiaries of the state's most abundant form of renewable energy - hydropower. What we do object to is being forced to subsidize those renewables that are not cost competitive...............Adding significant amounts of wind power does not negate the need to add more baseload generation, to ensure system reliability during periods of peak demand. Until we add significant baseload capacity in this state we are not likely to reap the benefits of a truly competitive marketplace where supply will respond to demand.

DENVER - The House passed and sent to the Senate a bill that attempts to lure more wind farms to northeastern Colorado. The vote was 54-9 earlier this week.

That’s about 20 percent of your electric bill coming back to Invenergy in the form of tax credit from your federal tax dollars.

"Quixotic" is an appropriate term for Victoria's energy policy. Ostensibly targeted at greenhouse gas emissions, it is also, confusingly, designed to promote an inefficient windmill industry. The outcome can be nothing but trivial in terms of emission reductions but serious in terms of cost to Victoria.

Are renewable energy credits (RECs) and carbon offsets exchanged in totally different markets, with little crossover potential for project developers and investors?

It all sounds nice and crunchy on the surface, but Whole Foods might soon find itself picketed the same way Wal-Mart is, but instead of unions it'll be environmentalists.