I have read many articles, columns and letters lately with regard to wind energy in general and the Wolfe Island proposed wind farm in specific. I have read these items with dread, as I know that it is inevitable that wind power will be coming to this area in spite of its unsightliness, inefficiency and expense. ...Climate change isn't going to stop tomorrow; weather patterns are changing. Who knows where the wind is going to blow tomorrow? You can't move a wind turbine once it's built; its placement is dictated by access to the resource.

Since Gordon Brown on Thursday launched what he called "the greatest revolution in our energy policy since the advent of nuclear power", centred on building thousands of new wind turbines, let us start with a simple fact. Nothing conveys the futility of wind power more vividly than this: that all the electricity generated by the 2,000 wind turbines already built in Britain is still less than that produced by a single medium-sized conventional power station. ...herein lies the central misconception which bedevils the entire debate. Because of the wind's intermittency, turbines generate on average at less than a third of their capacity. Thus to contribute 10GW would need 30GW of capacity, which would require up to twice as many turbines as ministers are talking about - needing to be erected at a rate of more than four every working day between now and 2020.

Gilead Power, a privately owned renewable energy company, is proposing a wind farm of up to 13, 90-metre high turbines in Ostrander Point Crown Land block, directly west of the National Wildlife Area and in the heart of the Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area. ...now is the time to ask politicians and the candidates the hard questions about this important part of Canada's natural heritage. Is the provincial government willing to protect the integrity of migratory bird habitat and say no to the wind farm at Ostrander Point? Are our leaders in Ottawa ready to ante-up the required resources to get our national wildlife areas off life-support? Demand answers!

When politicians call for a "national debate", it is a sure sign that the most dubious policy is about to be railroaded through, whether we debate it or not. That is what lies at the heart of the Prime Minister Gordon Brown's portentous declaration yesterday of a "green revolution". Thousands of new wind turbines are set to be built across the UK over the coming decade as part of a GBP 100 billion plan for renewable energy. What a dissembling cheek the Prime Minister has in suggesting we hold a "national debate" on the wind-farm "revolution". The die is cast and the EU-imposed target of 15 per cent of renewable energy has long been set. Where was the "national debate" about that?

Some business leaders and politicians are upset that a state agency is putting roadblocks in the way of a merger between a Spanish power company and RG&E's parent company. ...The PSC staff and the judge are just doing their jobs - to independently review whether the transaction is in the public interest - and politicians shouldn't criticize their recommendations, says Fairport resident Charles Straka. He's not involved with the merger case, but he is an unpaid representative of the average customer - an intervener in technical terms - in an ongoing RG&E rate case. And much of his interest in the merger deals with competition and its effect on rates. "If the Public Service Commission process is overruled, who's going to control rates at all?" he says.

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make its first decision on the worst energy crisis in American history: The California energy crisis of 2000-01. The legal repercussions of this decision could change the way energy is bought and sold in America for generations. For good or bad. As a former member of the California Legislature when this disaster of a law was passed unanimously (yes, I voted for it), I saw first-hand how bad regulators turned this consensus law into such an epic disaster. ...As a state legislator in California when this law was passed, I've seen first-hand how much damage this law - and even more importantly, its implementation - has done, and could continue to do if the Supreme Court does not reverse the Ninth Circuit.

Driven by record high oil prices, as well as concerns about how burning fossil fuels affects climate change, wind power may continue its upward trajectory. This translates into the potential for growth for wind power companies -- and for their investors as well. But if you're thinking about investing in this industry, be aware of three risks.

If local citizens want to assuage their guilt about energy use and carbon footprints they must first prepare themselves for a few simple inconvenient truths. That's because some wind and solar true believers conveniently dispense with rational discussion concerning what's possible to achieve in meeting future electric energy needs along with what it will cost to make significant gains. Were it not for the huge taxpayer subsidies the "green" revolution promised for wind and solar would not be possible. ... Our Department of Energy wants to achieve that 20 percent goal by the year 2030 and some States even want a more ambitious goal. Fortunately there are people who recognize that in order to achieve these goals we will need to build twice as much capacity because it isn't always windy where it needs to be.

In five months, Americans will be going to the polls to elect a new president. Maybe he'll have a long-term energy plan that will work. Because right now, we don't have a plan; if we do, it's not working. ...But the sun doesn't shine all day, and wind doesn't blow constantly. What do you do at night and when there's no wind? Mandate all you want, but nature isn't going to play by our rules. And if you want "clean" energy, we have to consider nuclear power.

Wind energy is not an alternative for baseload generation, and the Big Stone II plant will meet Minnesota's increasing demand for baseload electricity. There still is a place for wind energy. The co-owners plan to purchase or install 850 megawatts of wind energy by 2015 in addition to constructing Big Stone II. But Minnesota will need baseload power - power that is available 24 hours a day/seven days a week - and wind energy cannot meet that reliability standard. ...Baseload generation is needed to help justify the million-dollars-a-mile that it costs to construct these transmission lines.

Reports coming out of Dover hold that the two sides in the great battle of the offshore wind farm are negotiating. Where they will lead, we don't know. ...The legislators passed a law directing Delmarva Power to find a reliable local source of electrical power and ended up with that, plus an almost religious battle over offshore wind power. Delmarva opposed this setup from the beginning. And never too far away is the spectre of a long legal fight that could delay action even longer. ...Listening to the radio advertisements put out by both sides is like going on a roller coaster ride. True believers on either side of the fight have no trouble finding the truth, but everyone left in the middle is dizzy and slightly sick to the stomach.

We like the idea of wind power because it seems natural and clean. Windmills, after all, are part of our pastoral vision of Americana - power, nostalgia and patriotism rolled into one. What's not to like? Only the economics. Wind power, despite the government's best efforts to create a market, continues to be dogged by the same problems it always has: high costs, limited reliability and bad location. No wind, after all, blows forever, and when it does, it's not blowing where people need power. Even now, West Texas wind farms sit idle, awaiting new power lines to take high-priced power to the people.

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax. ...If Congress is really going to impose this carbon tax in the name of saving mankind, the least it should do is forego all of this political largesse. In return for this new tax, Congress should cut taxes elsewhere to make the bill revenue neutral.

But as headlines turn from green profits to big banking losses, questions are being raised about whether an economic slowdown will depress rapid growth in low-carbon business. There was a nervy response to Shell's decision this month to pull out of the giant London Array wind farm, although the company insisted it was a business decision and not down to dwindling interest in renewable energy. The risk that a recession will hold back environmental investment trends seems obvious, as consumers and companies look to save costs and become more risk-averse, especially since many corporate commitments are voluntary.

The five-member commission next month has a key decision to make: whether to allow a large Spanish energy company, Iberdrola, to buy Energy East, the corporation that owns Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and New York State Electric and Gas, which between them serve 1.3 million upstate homes, farms and businesses. Price tag: $4.5 billion. The staff of the commission has recommended that the board turn thumbs down, partly because it would give one company control of not only the wires and pipes that carry gas and electricity to customers but also some power plants and other facilities that generate the electricity. "Full divestiture of all the generation Iberdrola and Energy East own, and their complete exit from the generation business in New York, is needed to fully protect ratepayers from the pernicious effects of vertical market power,'" according to a staff report on the plan.

The state ocean management bill, a compromise hammered out by a conference committee last week and approved by the House and Senate this week, is a mix of good and bad. On the positive side, the compromise scuttles House-passed legislation that would have opened Buzzards Bay and other state ocean sanctuaries to unlimited renewable energy development. If Gov. Deval Patrick signs the new bill, the state would only allow "appropriate scaled" projects in ocean sanctuaries. Of course, "appropriate-scaled" still needs to be defined. ... Given the need for renewable energy, the bill is a good compromise, and state Sen. Robert O'Leary, D-Barnstable, should be commended for his role in securing the positive aspects of the legislation. ...At the same time, Patrick could make the bill even better.

These days we read and hear more and more about the exponential increases in renewable energy, particularly large wind farms such as those sprouting up on Colorado's front range and eastern plains. Colorado's Amendment 37 requires the state's largest utility companies to produce 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2015. A subsequent legislative action doubled that to 20 percent by 2020. ...This is all great news, right? Not if you are an independent grid system operator, and not if you're expecting all of this large scale wind power to help reduce global warming carbon emissions. Wind power is by nature a notoriously intermittent source of power. Wind simply doesn't blow steadily all of the time. Therefore, the power output of all large scale wind farms goes up and down dramatically throughout the day, regardless of the demand for power on the grid. ...Without energy diversity, the more renewable power we mandate, the more unreliable the grid will become. The laws of physics simply can't be amended.

The millions of people who live south of Maine in the region from Boston to New York create huge demands for electricity. But because supplies are so limited, they have the highest power costs in America. ...Existing power lines running from central Maine to the south can't carry any greater peak load, either from within Maine or from our Canadian neighbors. As one economist put it, Maine is sandwiched between 6-cent power to our north and a 10-cent market to our south. That price gap is creating pressure to build a new $1 billion transmission line to move electricity from northern generators to southern customers.

[L]et's take a closer look at the wind business to figure out why America isn't already running on free wind power. One reason of course is that Americans are spoiled and want the power to be on all of the time. ...That is a problem when the wind doesn't blow all of the time.But more importantly, if you do the math, the investment in this part time power plant alone, neglecting transmission, profit, and operating overhead, is $13,000 per home. I say part time, because we must remember that someone has to own the backup power plant that isn't making any money when the wind is blowing. Solar in some ways is even worse when it comes to the massive arrays and land necessary to place them on. And like wind, solar is not full time, science has not figured out how to keep it from getting dark at night. I am certainly not against technology, just so long as we get the whole story. Like ethanol, we can burn our food supply, but not without repercussions.

Watermelons - people who are "green on the outside and Red on the inside" - refuse to believe renewable-energy technologies may never be capable of replacing oil and natural gas, but it doesn't stop them from sowing their fantasy seeds. ...Even with massive subsidies, renewables can't come close to competing with oil and gas; without them, they'd be dead in the water. Though wind and solar have been on the "subsidy take" for decades, the Journal notes, they produce less than 1 percent of America's electricity; nuclear, meanwhile, generates 20 percent but is subsidized 15 times less. Believing all renewables, let alone just wind, will produce 20 percent of America's power anytime soon requires a leap of faith only fools would attempt.