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.

A form of eminent domain is happening here in New York state with the placement of industrial wind turbines. The town of Prattsburg, N.Y., is one example. The town has voted to condemn private property to aid a wind company in building a local wind farm. There has also been talk of taking private land in Henderson for power lines to service a wind project on Galloo Island. In Jefferson County, wind projects are being planned for the towns of Cape Vincent, Clayton, Orleans, Lyme, Brownville and others. Placing a few hundred huge wind turbines throughout these towns is a foreign wind company's form of eminent domain.

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.

Many thanks for the excellent lead story in the Monday, Aug. 18, issue of the Times concerning wind-farm corruption which affirmed what many suspected. But I fear the town of Clayton's nearsighted board members will overlook the article. They see only immediate profit from turbines and refuse to recognize long-term concerns about severe environmental, ecological and economic damage.

One industry insider, Mick Sagrillo of the American Wind Energy Association, warned in an interview in Renewable Energy World that the some companies may try to exploit the concerned public's inflated hopes: "It's great that people are looking for alternatives, but it's amazing how little people know when they seek them out. That leaves people open to purchasing a product that is less-than-reliable. We are a very gullible culture, we're always looking for the magic bullet."

But had Bloomberg done the math, he'd know that even if Manhattan were topped by a solid block of windmills, they wouldn't come close to meeting the city's power consumption. Wind power has its place as a power source, but it's not a place at the top. It provides less than one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. electricity because it costs more to produce. The wind may be free, but the equipment is expensive. The costs are even dearer if you follow Bloomberg's other suggestion, namely floating windmills in the middle of the ocean. How many windmills does it take to meet the power needs of a typical city, much less New York City?

I attended the July 30 showing of BP Alternative Energy's proposed 95 wind turbine settings in the town of Cape Vincent. A presentation by Dereth B. Glance, program director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment, stated that in her experience there was no noise at 750 feet away from operating turbines. She also stated that studies have shown that there is no reduction in property values as a result of proximity to wind turbines. These statements are in sharp contrast with the reality that I have encountered in my efforts to learn the truth about wind turbines.

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.

The Lyme Planning Board concerns itself with crafting reasonable zoning laws for consideration by the town board. The Planning Board sent wind turbine questionnaires to every Lyme resident. We read and tallied the results from each of the 916 surveys returned. The survey respondents, by clear majorities, indicated that they did not want wind turbines near the water or the population centers of Chaumont and Three Mile Bay. BP Alternative Energy and Voters for Wind now say that the survey process was somehow flawed ...

Currently, the wind law is designed to accommodate the noise levels expected by the developer PPM Energy. These levels are measured at the outside wall of a resident's home, disregarding one's property line, and are unhealthy. Federal guidelines state that an appropriate level of noise in a bedroom during sleep is 24dBA (A-weighted decibels). However, our current local laws allow noise levels to reach 50dBA. State guidelines in New York state that an increase of 6dBA above normal background will cause complaints and should be avoided. According to the guidelines, an increase of 20dBA is intolerable. ...We have shown our local government that placing 62 turbines in a four- by five-mile populated area is harmful to residents. To date the town leaders in Clayton continue to ignore the plea from residents to protect us.

First, it's important to confront the issue in an open way, garner public opinion and plan ahead. Some towns in Clinton County have declared a moratorium to give time for careful study of whether wind towers are appropriate for their communities and, if so, where they should they be located. This is a wise approach. Towns have zoning laws for a reason, and wind turbines should conform. ...if the rules are followed, conflicts avoided and plans put into place beforehand in a transparent way with adequate public input, the energy needs of the country and the preservation of the environment require that opponents should take another look.

The financial boon from the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County is undeniable. ...the Maple Ridge Wind Farm fell within an Empire Zone, which allows businesses within the zone to be reimbursed for their property taxes and make the projects more affordable to developers. The reimbursement enabled the several local governments to receive tax benefits and payments higher than might be expected. But wind farm supporters in Jefferson County will be disappointed if they expect to see similar benefits to their municipalities and school districts. The proposed projects are not in any Empire Zone now.

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.

Integrity of all government-regulated and supported programs is an absolute requirement in a democratic society. However, characterizing wind energy as a "vital industry" demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of wind energy's capabilities to contribute in a significant way to our energy needs. If your editor had attempted to understand some simple technicalities of wind energy, via even a cursory glance at readily available resources, he/she would have learned the following: ...

Every wind-generating power company in New York needs to come under closer scrutiny. There is just too much public money at stake. An aggressive watchdog is needed to make sense of the complicated deals they make, to protect taxpayers and to monitor the conduct of public officials whose decisions can yield wind generators millions of dollars. That's why a state attorney general's investigation of two wind-power companies is so important -- and why a critical, independent eye should be kept on the rest of the industry. ...These agreements need to above-board without even the hint of conflict.

When St. Lawrence Wind submitted its draft environmental study to Cape Vincent, there was no assessment considering the viewshed impact from the St. Lawrence River. This is astounding and negligent considering much of Cape Vincent's economy is tourism based on water recreation. Many people will view this industrial wind plant from the water.

Billions of dollars are spent through taxpayer subsidies to promote the biggest industry that we know as ENERGY. GREEN ENERGY to be more specific. Wind energy to be exact. ...I am for positive change in how we use energy and how we produce energy. Wind may fit some communities and not others. Responsible developers should consider this fact and not waste our taxpayer money (yes, we fund these projects through NYSERDA and charges on our utility bills) in order to push poorly planned projects into communities that are resistant to industrial wind projects.

In the lead article in Thursday's paper, "Parcel owners act against Lyme," and in a letter from Beth White on the same subject there is the implication that those of us who were involved in the drafting of a law governing the siting of industrial wind turbines in Lyme are against alternative energy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The majority of the residents in Lyme have simply expressed a preference for a zoning law so that the citizens of Lyme, and not the developer, determine what the town will look like in the future.

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.

Decisions on the appropriateness of building industrial wind installations should be based on the scientific facts of the issue, not just about who stands to profit from these projects. Since wind can never provide RELIABLE power on demand, it is simply the electricity version of the ethanol scam. It mattered not that it cost more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than it provided, nor that there were many who foretold of the problems associated with ethanol. Alas, since there was money to be made, politicians pushed it through in their "politically correct" rush to appear "green". Now, we are left dealing with the consequences of the rising costs of food and anything else associated with corn, the havoc it is wreaking on the environment, while it certainly isn't alleviating our oil dependence. It is very sad indeed, that energy and public policy decisions are being based on greed, ignorance, and misinformation being put forth by corporate wind profiteers, pandering politicians, and agenda-driven, corporate-owned media (e.g. - GE owns NBC), rather than according to what's actually right and wrong.