In his recent letter ("Wolf showed courage in supporting Cape Wind"), Elrick misrepresents the FAA's current position on Cape Wind and totally ignores the safety concerns of all three local airports. In fact, in a January 2008 letter to Rep. William Delahunt, the FAA cited a "presumed hazard determination" for Cape Wind due to concerns for local air traffic and radar interference to air traffic control systems.

Let's replace all the coal-fired plants with wind turbines. Just don't site them all in West Virginia and have the electricity travel over hundreds of miles of transmission lines. This time, build the turbines in the cities and the suburbs. Those places are already noisy, and they have no beautiful hills to ruin. Let's put the turbines where the electric customers are. Urban wind farms will let the metropolitan elites see where their electricity comes from.

Sunday's massive series of explosions at a Toronto propane plant gives credence to every Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) argument posed to this point in time. ...In Barrie, Northern Ethanol's plan to build a plant on the former Molson Brewery site has faced opposition from residents in every part of the city. Opposition to Bob Jackson's plan to built a wind turbine on his Mapleview Drive West Toyota dealership has, conversely, caused mostly local concerns. In both cases, however, opponents fear the worse. ...And everyone is concerned about how it will affect their bottom lines, property values. The point is, the reason people look at worst-case scenarios is that sometimes they happen.

Energy secretary John Hutton yesterday gave the go-ahead to plans to build eighteen 125-metre high turbines, at Middlemoor, near Alnwick. But it cannot be built until energy giant npower comes up with a way of preventing the turbines interfering with RAF radar systems. Nick Blezard - chairman of the Save Northumberland's Environment, which opposed the project - says this is effectively a refusal given the radar issue. We can only hope he is right and that the Government - reluctant to admit defeat - is spinning Middlemoor as a "go-ahead" knowing that the radar caveat will halt the project.

And turbines are still something of a novelty for most of us, so the "not in my backyard" mentality hasn't yet set in when it comes to wind farms. In fact, as we reported in the Energy Journal, groups of ranchers in eastern Wyoming -- seeing an opportunity to make some money without significantly disrupting their ag operations -- have banded together to market their properties to wind energy developers. That, of course, could change. As turbines begin to spring up in more sensitive, pristine spots, or closer to residential areas, the novelty could wear off quickly.

The safety of the citizens of Chatham-Kent is being compromised by improper siting of industrial wind turbines. The General Electric wind turbine "Ice shedding and ice throw -- risk and mitigation" manual states that "1.5 x (hub height + rotor diameter) is the formula for calculating a safe distance for turbine siting from roads and public areas." ...The setbacks C-K has in place for industrial wind turbines (50 m from roadways and property boundaries, and 300 metres from homes) are a threat to the public.

Well now you have gotten over the shock value of living next to an industrial wind turbine, maybe you are ready for more technology in your life? How about microwave towers for cell phone communications or emergency response teams or high definition TV and radio? Why not? Your once rural area is now an industrial park anyway, so what does a few more poles and towers matter now? And remember your driveway and small country road? Well it's now been widened and graded and 50' wide access roads carved away from it to provide clearways for giant tractor trailers. And the deer you used to enjoy so close to your home? Gone ...So what was your life once like back in those tranquil old days before your property area became an industrial wind energy site?

The concern over mountaintop mining is one that most people share. Extracting coal is dangerous, transporting coal is hard on the roads, and burning the coal to turn the turbines that generate the electricity is never going to be without some sort of air pollution. However, wind power predates coal, and wind is still far from a practical and reliable source of energy. If wind power were cheaper, electric companies would switch to it in a New York minute. Companies seek to keep costs down, and profits up. If Appalachian Power could replace its John Amos plant with a few windmills, it would. One problem is reliability. The wind is not constant on Earth. The dog days of summer could stop the wind, just as air conditioners are clicking into overdrive.

The wind turbine issue is another example of misguided leadership. I've criticized Mike Reagan on this, and with good reason. Instead of having a meaningful discussion about the aviation safety problems being caused by wind turbines, Reagan simply dismisses any concerns as a "phony save Travis" issue. And yes, Mr. Reagan did receive a campaign donation from the wind turbine developer.

Being neither pro nor con on wind turbines, I would like some facts on them. How much power do they produce in megawatt hours? Will it take 20,000 of these structures to replace 20,000 megawatts of power in our coal fired grid? Is enough voltage produced to push this power over 100 miles? ... I have 23 years experience in power generation and have seen political fads come and go. We would all like to lower our energy costs. ...Wind turbines are a good idea, but are they practical or just another tax break for power companies?

Last week the old feeder drove through NW Iowa. My route used to offer pleasant scenery most of the way from the feedlot to my destination. I get off of I-29 at Onawa and take the county blacktops to Arnolds Park. For the last 10 years, a growing part of the drive has been through a wind farm. Its like driving through a hellish, whirling machine. Almost everyone agrees that these monstrosities are hideous eyesores. Nobody with any sense of the rural aesthetic wants them anywhere near where they live. ...Now the scenic Iowa roads between Galva and Peterson are studded with the ugly contraptions as far as the eye can see. Perhaps portending worse to come.

The foreign-owned companies that are rushing to put 406-foot industrial wind turbines in our beautiful Thousand Islands area are not thinking about our safety or welfare or even about helping the environment. They just want to line their pockets with your tax dollars. The industrial wind turbines are subsidized with your federal and state taxes as well as surcharges collected from your electric bill. They will not reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil since we do not use much oil to make electricity. ...The towns of Clayton and Orleans said that it's OK to put a 406-foot industrial wind turbine 500 feet from your property line or 1,250 feet from your home. That is too close for our health and safety.

"One windmill will not put out much noise, but when you put a cluster of them together and get the blades all spinning at the same rate, then it begins to emit noise -- enough that our radar can 'hear' the noise." You could tell the radar to ignore that frequency, but if there's a thunderstorm with the same frequency, it also would be ignored. "The use of wind energy has become a big problem not only in the meteorological world, but also to the military community as airplanes could fly low under a wind farm and one would never know the difference as to whether they are looking at false returns from the wind farm or an enemy plane."

The general public and public agencies have apparently missed an important story regarding Travis AFB that has occurred over the last year. In an extraordinary show of concern, base officials have issued four letters objecting to the continued addition of wind turbines to the Montezuma Hills wind resource area. Air Force officials almost never make public statements about local land use issues, so these letters are highly unusual and show urgent concern. However, these concerns have fallen on deaf ears with Solano County leadership. ...Simply put, the wind company went over the head of the local commander and went to higher levels to secure a deal. In return for $1 million to study how to mitigate the problem, and stating that 75 new turbines would not increase the damage that the 750 existing turbines have already done, higher HQ then directed Travis to withdraw objections.

In AES' application to the Public Service Commission for a siting certificate, in the second volume page 5, they state, "there is a demonstrated need for additional generating capacity in the region as well as the PJM (grid managers) power markets which include West Virginia." Maybe AES isn't aware that West Virginia already exports 70 percent of the power produced in the state. We certainly don't need the power. West Virginia being a huge exporter of power has transmission lines running everywhere, providing wind developers easy access to the grid. With no real sitting regulations, no mass population to deal with, and armed with tax credits and incentives, both federal and state, once again West Virginia is ripe for exploitation. ...Hopefully our mountains and wind will always be here. Wind developers want to cram these wind turbines down our throats and act as if this is the only chance we'll ever have to take advantage of this so-called "wonderful opportunity."

The current political wind is in favor of the developers and industrial wind energy interests, thereby significantly influencing the pressure on our natural environment. If the trend continues, how much of our national, state and private forests will remain when our fast expanding population will likely be desperate for a little breathing room in the future - 25, 50 and 100 years from today? I am well aware of the issues of global warming and the nation's energy requirements and am totally convinced that industrial wind energy projects on the ridge tops of the mountains in the Eastern United States is not the solution and unworthy of the billions of dollars that we are bestowing upon this industry. A major reason for the increasing opposition to the development of large industrial wind projects in the mountains is loss of visual amenity, the effects of highly visible vertical man-made structures with rotating blades located in predominantly horizontal, static natural hillscapes. The loss of beautiful scenery, favorite views and inspiring landscapes are objections dismissed by large corporate developers as emotional and subjective. ...In conclusion, the negative issues, problems and drawbacks of siting industrial wind turbines on the pristine mountains is not the answer our nation's need for energy sources. Why are we allowing them to infiltrate our ecologically fragile landscapes and cause huge negative impacts?

A company has applied to the Federal Aviation Administration for permission to build 131 wind turbines along 18 miles of ridge line between Virginia and West Virginia. The 440-foot turbines would tower above national forest land in Shenandoah, Rockingham and Hardy counties. If approved, work on the project could start as early as 2010. That, of course, is a pretty big if. As attractive as the concept is - letting wind generate electricity instead of air-polluting coal or expensive Middle Eastern oil - the wind farm proposal will almost certainly trigger a battle royal between corporate interests and valley residents.

Thus, under the guise of environmental values, public policy in Virginia is promoting renewable energy. But under a different set of environmental values, we'll find that many of those projects are undesirable. To my way of thinking, energy conservation is the most pristine environmental policy of all -- avoid consuming the electricity in the first place. Of course, our current regulatory apparatus encourages Dominion and other electric utilities to pursue renewable energy sources, whatever the cost, because they can pass on the cost to rate payers. By contrast, power companies in Virginia only undercut their market when they invest in conservation measures. We're getting what we wished for, and we may not like it.

I'd like to recommend some light reading for long winter nights to residents of Randolph and Barbour counties, especially those folks along Harrison Avenue on the west side of Elkins. Download the AES Laurel Mountain Wind Project application from the Public Service Commission and pick a chapter. You might have to wait for this 1,381-page document. And the PSC has made it nearly impossible to download its three 10.4, 67.3 and 110MB-sized volumes on a dial-up connection, which the majority of effected residents have. The chapter I read last evening deals with shadow flicker ...I recommend that private landowners along the eight-mile route of the proposed project go the PSC Web site and do a little reading. They also might want to let the PSC know their feelings. Tonight I'm going to tackle the chapter on bats.

We keep getting told that wind power will help reduce carbon emissions and help combat global warming. Europe is littered with wind plants yet there are no reports of a single fossil fuel powered plant being closed as a result of wind power. Europe shows no evidence of any significant reduction in carbon emissions due to wind power. Denmark, a country with one of the largest numbers of wind turbines, is one of the worst offenders in terms of carbon output per capita. This failure to deliver carbon savings makes the negative impacts all more important to consider. The impacts from the Backbone Mountain facility have already destroyed numerous bats. That is but a single installation. ...West Virginia suffers enough with the coal mining industry destroying its mountains and endangering coal miners. That it should be subjected to further abuse from what amounts to nothing less than modern day "emperor's new clothing" is a terrible irony.