Horns Reef [wind farm in Denmark] is emblematic of enormous subsidies to industries that would not exist in a free market. In the U.S., such industries are being supported by massive government subsidies and tax write-offs that shift the cost of resulting electricity to unsuspecting Americans' tax bills and monthly electricity bills.

In the next decade, we are due to lose 40 per cent of the generating capacity that keeps our lights on and our economy running. Within a few years, eight of the nine nuclear plants that supply 20 per cent of our power will come to the end of their life. ... To address our looming energy crisis with the urgency it calls for, we would not only have to ignore the fantasies of Mr Hansen and the green lobby, but also directly confront our government in Brussels, which stands in the way of almost every measure we need to take. In this sense, in terms of what it will cost us, energy looks to become the defining issue of our EU membership.

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.

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.

Early in their development, long-bladed wind turbines were seen as threats to birds, especially migrating varieties used to crossing certain mountain passes. Now, in spite of technological improvements and efforts to keep their propellers off at critical times, lawsuits are descending on wind farms - working ones and some on the drawing boards - to turn them off or to stop development in the path of some birds' migration and in bat habitat. But behind some environmentalist arguments against the increasing clusters of wind turbines is a more basic, if less compelling objection: They're ugly. They can be noisy. Besides that, opponents wonder, how do we know they're not sending surges of electricity into the atmosphere, doing who-knows-what damage to animals, two- and four-legged alike?

Ontario, which has developed and implemented some progressive policies for getting more renewable energy on the grid, hasn't found a way to tie these programs into a larger, economic-boosting industrial strategy. None of its request for proposals for new wind power has required any level of local content, nor does the province's standard offer program, which pays a premium for the electricity that comes from small-scale solar, wind, hydro and biogas projects.

The former vice president, now in his second career as a climate Cassandra, has spent the past few weeks pushing the notion that the United States can be "repowered" -- that all its electricity needs can be met without producing greenhouse gases. He says it can be done within a decade. ...The problem is that, despite the current boom in green power, renewable sources such as the sun and the wind still provide just a tiny fraction of the U.S. electricity supply. The rest is mainly dirty stuff: coal, gas, oil. To replace one with the other over the course of a decade, energy experts say, would make the Manhattan Project look like a science-fair volcano.

For many years security of supply has taken a back seat in energy policy. We have been more concerned with price and, latterly, reducing emissions. ...security of energy supply must also be put back on the agenda with an equal priority. That means developing a mix of renewable generating forms including wave, hydro and biomass, which have more predictable output than wind turbines.

Conventional wisdom, of which public opinion is a component, supports industrial wind power well beyond its negligible merits for electricity generation and CO2 emissions reduction. Although not well-informed, this popular view is understandable because of concerns about climate change, media hype, political policies that claim to address this issue, pronouncements by environmentalists stepping outside their area of expertise, and effective promotion by wind power organizations. Europe is looked to, undeservedly, as a model. This drives a political motivation for governments to take action in support of wind power, and for opposition parties to criticize any apparent lack of action. It has made having "green" credentials a political necessity.

As much as there's been lots of talk about wind addressing our energy needs in the future, that future would appear to be a long way off yet. Wind accounts for less than 1 per cent of the energy produced in Canada (Ontario is the wind-farm leader). The Canadian Wind Energy Association believes it can be 5 per cent by 2010. ...There's no shortage of people, including green enthusiasts, who believe the forecasts are wildly optimistic. While wind certainly offers us hope and will be a weapon in our collective fight for energy independence, it's also a technology that poses huge challenges.

Wind energy has its problems. It only comes when the wind blows. This reality - this Achilles' heel - makes wind a nuisance in the eyes of power-system operators, who have the challenge of trying to balance electricity supply and demand on the grid. This means we need to adapt the grid so it becomes easier to predict and manage such an intermittent, yet crucial resource. Too many jurisdictions - including Ontario - try to shoehorn wind and other renewable technologies into a 100-year-old electricity system designed for big central power plants. For this reason, wind bears a burden it inherited, and takes blame for inflexibility it didn't create

Wind power is often portrayed as a feel-good substitute for big power plants, but it has severe limitations; its performance, obviously, is as fickle as the wind. Because of that, wind farms must still be backed up by conventional power in case the wind fails. "You can predict some changes in the wind broadly but not second-by-second," said Robert Michaels, a professor of economics at California State University, Fullerton, who has studied the issue. ...Wind energy will have a growing place in America's energy portfolio, but its niche probably won't approach the Energy Department's 20 percent prediction.

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."

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.

After years of our begging the state to do something to bring clean industry and quality permanent jobs to the area, along with a highway, the governor has instead gone ahead and lowered environmental standards while using his bully pulpit to push an industry - wind power - that will irreversibly degrade the same "quality of place." Through federal subsidies and "double accelerated depreciation," we all pay for behemoth wind farms. As ratepayers of ISO New England, we will also pay for the needed transmission lines to southern New England. "Carbon credits" will be sold to polluters, enabling them to keep polluting. The electricity will be sold at a premium to the Boston-New York corridor. The profits of the venture will leave the state and the country, in the case of Portuguese-owned Horizon Wind Energy.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gaye Symington set up the debate with her simple proposal to drive the use of wind power in Vermont from 0.2 percent to 20 percent in 10 years. A far-fetched goal that's just too simple to realize? The response was swift from David O'Brien, the state Public Service commissioner. He used one word to define Symington's idea: "irresponsible." Symington's suggestion may in fact be "irresponsible." Yet we're all adult enough to probe probabilities ...

The most workable and affordable energy plan is one that throws in pieces of everything, from increased oil and gas exploration and production to increased conservation and efficiency in heating and transportation to multiple fuels and power sources for vehicles and electricity generation, old and new (wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, biofuels, even new coal technologies and a nuke or two). Such an approach doesn't make for flashy advertising campaigns or snappy slogans.

Pickens' plan is basically a couple of pie charts showing how he'd like to see the U.S. energy economy work. ...He gives no specifics publicly, but he's made it clear that it's up to Congress, not consumers or investors, to make this vision become reality. Because Pickens has announced his gambit in the name of the environment, the media have dropped the skepticism they usually apply to the claims of businessmen trying to make a buck. Because his plan involves government - meaning you and I pay the costs - that skepticism ought to be even greater.

It is clear the majority of commissioners court is in favor of allowing the wind farm to go up in northern Young County. From a government perspective, the choice is easy. By agreeing to waive some of the property tax for 10 years, commissioners will see the income to the county rise by between $200,000 and $400,000 each year. ...While wind farms are often beneficial to property owners who lease their land, they are frequently hated by other land owners. The bottom line is putting 40 or 50 wind generators up in Young County will drastically change the scenic view many people have become accustomed to. If you want an example of what you may see, just drive down Highway 16 South toward Possum Kingdom Lake and look at the windmills sitting south of Bryson.

Here's a scenario OPEC would kill for: Your product gets pricier and pricier, and yet demand grows relentlessly. That's the rosy picture facing the world's wind-turbine makers. Denmark's Vestas, the world's biggest turbine maker, reported a big jump in profits today-and a $10 billion order book for more. With a global thirst for clean energy, some companies stand to clean up. Turbine prices have risen 74% in the last three years-and yet countries from the U.S. to China can't get enough of them.