Western governors, animated by President Obama's goal of doubling renewable energy production in the U.S. within three years, have identified dozens of areas rich in "new energy" sources. However, they're now facing some of the same "old energy" obstacles to getting the projects moving. Their challenge risks creating a contradiction in which building environmentally friendly new-energy plants tramples sensitive natural areas.

Now that the Cape Cod Commission is appealing the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board's approval of the proposed wind farm on Nantucket Sound to the state's highest court, it's important to consider the stakes involved. This is not about the merits or demerits of the project. The appeal is about the ability of a state board, made up of nine gubernatorial appointees, to overrule a regional authority simply because the project developer submitted an application to the Cape Cod Commission.

About now, Neal Michelutti and two colleagues at Queen's University are receiving responses to a survey about wind turbines on Wolfe Island, which sits in Lake Ontario near Kingston. They want to find out whether, as many suspect, the turbines rob people of sleep and hearing, or cause stress, skin rashes, headaches, high blood pressure or a host of other ailments.

The winds of dissent are blowing across southern Ontario, buffeting the dreams of entrepreneurs hoping to cash in on elevated support for renewable energy. "There's a lot of controversy about it coming out now," said Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture president Dave Riddell in a recent edition of the Alliston Herald newspaper, when asked to comment about prospective wind energy projects.

I received a press release on Thursday about a new Emerging Energy Research [EER] study on wind power installations in the US for 2009 and beyond. EER argues that US installations could be down as much as 24% in 2009 from a record 8.55 GW in 2008. While utility-led projects remain mostly on track, smaller IPPs and developers that rely on project finance or other forms of external financing are finding the current market environment challenging.

The list of areas where the government has chosen to exert the force of law over the persuasion of education is becoming legion, including but not limited to smoking, cellphone usage and, most importantly, wind power. Ontario Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman reinforced the position Monday. "We passed a law, and the law does not create an opportunity for municipalities to resist these projects just because they may have a concern," he said.

First, the state Energy Facilities Siting Board approved a bundle of permits for the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm, overruling local concerns raised by Cape towns and the Cape Cod Commission. Opponents of the industrial-sized project called the board's decision a dangerous precedent that could erode local authority. Now a proposed bill that would streamline the permitting process for land-based wind turbines may give the state veto power over local zoning regulations.

Something very important has been happening this week -- more important, if you can believe it, than what Nancy Pelosi knew about waterboarding or why Kris Allen scored his upset victory on "American Idol." I refer to the marathon committee markup on Capitol Hill of a monster piece of legislation that promises to reduce by 83 percent over the next 40 years the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from American cars, power plants and factories.

This series of letters appearing in the Wisconsin State Journal provide important insights into how Wisconsin residents feel wind energy facilities in their communities and the State's efforts to assume authority over all siting of wind farms.

Ontario's new Green Energy Act passed third reading in the Legislature Thursday by a vote of 59 to 13. And it's fair to say that never in the field of legislative conflict was so much ballyhoo and promise hustled through so quickly with so little input from so few. ...And now we get to find out who was right, for better or for worse. Probably, it will be some of each. It's the size of the portions that is in question.

President Barack Obama has promised an energy revolution in the world's largest economy, with renewable sources of power and "green" technologies breaking America's - and ultimately the world's - dependence on conventional fuels. The environmental, strategic, and economic benefits - including lower use of carbon-emitting fossil fuels, less reliance on politically volatile oil-and-gas exporters, and the creation of millions of well-paid jobs - are uncontroversial. But how realistic is this vision?

Wind turbines should not be portrayed as the most reliable, cleanest and cheapest source of energy. The changes to our scenic landscape will not be minimal. Why do we have to watch the value of our property decrease and our beautiful ridgeline be destroyed? A few business people with a profit motive should not rush through an approval process that sacrifices the natural beauty of Vermont for decades or forever.

Europe is several years ahead of the US in implementing policies intended to mitigate global warming. All of the European Union's member countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and adopted a wide range of policies to lower their emissions and meet their Kyoto targets. These policies include a cap-and-trade initiative known as the emissions trading scheme, steep fuel taxes, and ambitious programs to build windmills and other renewable energy projects. These policies were undertaken at a time when the EU economy was doing well and - one hopes - with full knowledge that they would have significant costs.

I didn't ask to have wind turbine complexes placed near me and my neighbours. I've lived here for 20 years and some neighbours, for a lifetime. We do not deserve to have our families and homes exposed to this for ANY reason. The fact that these wind turbines are so ineffective is only insult to injury, literally. The government needs to decommission the turbines that are causing such problems instead of adding more to the problem.

We need to introduce simple arithmetic into our discussions of energy. We need to understand how much energy our chosen lifestyles consume, we need to decide where we want that energy to come from, and we need to get on with building energy systems of sufficient size to match our desired consumption.

Unfortunately, President Obama and other proponents only mention solar or wind power and "clean coal" as new sources of electricity. I'm guessing that cleaning the coal would emit more carbon than burning the coal, and the media tout the mythology of cheap, abundant "alternative," "green," and "renewable" energy. They never discuss the cost of enough electricity to replace gasoline in the bulk of the transportation system!

At the moment we generate 75GW of power in the UK of which wind accounts for about 2.2GW. The Government wants us to generate 33GW from wind by 2020. The London Array's phase one will generate 630MW (about two-thirds of a gigawatt) which comes on stream only in 2012. You can see the enormous investment still needed, and needed very soon, if wind power is going to hit its target. But by 2016, 35pc of our traditional oil and coal-fired power stations will be closed under the Large Combustion Plant Directive.

It is important to understand why the Danish government, which appears to have commissioned Mr. Pedersen's comments, is sensitive to critiques of the Danish experience with wind power. Denmark is home to Vestas, the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, with 20,000 employees and a market share of between 20% and 25%. As the market for its turbines in Denmark and other European countries becomes saturated, it seeks to export the Danish experience worldwide. To this end, it recently ran a multi-million dollar global ad campaign with the slogan, "Believe in the wind," claiming that Denmark has solved the problem of dirty electricity through wind power.

Wind power kicks in 0.05 percent of the state's power. In spite of this marginal contribution, there remains a widespread misconception that giant wind turbines, situated in the right locations, are a viable alternative. Unfortunately, big wind farms have prohibitive costs for infrastructure and construction and are inefficient. ...Huge, rotating 80-foot blades catch the wind and are connected by a mammoth driveshaft to convert mechanical power into electrical energy. This is like having a diesel locomotive balanced on a 200-foot pole.