There is near-universal agreement that meeting the state's goals for reducing fossil fuels will require major new lines between California's cities and the places where the wind blows strongest and the sun shines steadiest. Is this power line the right project? No, but it won't be the last attempt. ...We might need new lines, but they need to built in the right way, in the right place, with the least impact to residents and our natural environment.

Has anyone ever interviewed any of these protesters, asking for their reason to take time off work and travel to these sites to protest? And in spite of these existing +13,000 German wind turbines, not one single coal-fired power plant became shut down. ...George Smitherman's attitude and gag-order, abrogating municipal councils' democratic mandate to act in the best interest of all citizens remains despicable!

The governor has declared a goal of 2,000 megawatts (MW) of wind power in Massachusetts by the year 2020, and his staff has commissioned a study showing that over half could be located in the Berkshires. ...It's hard to imagine so many 40-story structures on our mountains, but the state has already mapped them, identifying more than 50 places with enough acreage and estimated wind resources to support from five to 53 industrial wind turbines.

Last week the Irish Academy of Engineering (IAE) called for a halt on a proposed €30bn spend on the national energy infrastructure so that a proper assessment of future energy needs as well as the economic benefit of the massive investment in renewable power could be addressed. ...Plans are now afoot to deliver up to 7,800 MW of wind power on the island of Ireland, with a mixture of onshore and offshore projects in the pipeline. It may well help reduce our carbon emissions, but at what cost?

I was one of a number of citizens representing 33-plus New York state grass-roots groups that attended the June 16 NYSERDA [New York State Energy Research and Development Authority] environmental stakeholder's meeting on wind power in Albany. The reasons for this unique meeting were to answer citizen's questions on industrial wind power that we have been asking NYSERDA for years now.

While proponents of the bill have sought to argue that the costs of such a system would be negligible, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bill proposes a massive and highly regressive tax on the U.S. economy, and could potentially cause not only extensive business failures, unemployment and privation within our borders, but starvation among poorer populations elsewhere. To understand this, it is only necessary to look at the numbers.

Renewable energy faces many hurdles before it is "ready for prime-time", not the least of which is the ability for the industry to sustain itself long-term without government subsidies. Simply put, green energy has to provide sufficient profit for companies to invest in the infrastructure needed to produce it. Without government subsidies, that is not currently possible.

Even if the Waxman-Markey bill passed intact--and it won't--the impact on demand for renewable electric generation would be minimal. Andy Stone explains why.

What we need is a reasonable and balanced approach that combines all energy technologies, both new and old. Wind, solar, geo-thermal, and biofuels will all play a role but expanded, environmentally responsible development of domestic fossil fuels is the best way to become less dependent on the Middle East. We must create a balanced energy portfolio that can serve as a bridge to the future, rather than something that simply creates more problems than it solves.

Friday, in a text book example of bad governance, the House of Representatives passed by the slimmest of margins what is believed to be the largest tax bill in United States history. Not a single one of the 219 representatives who voted for it knew exactly what was in the bill. The major part of the bill is its Cap and Trade provisions.

Whether you are for or against wind farms in Massachusetts you should be aware that the pending Wind Energy Siting Reform Act of 2009 is a threat to your freedom and constitutional rights. This Act is currently being fast-tracked through the state Legislature with virtually no on-the-record public debate at the insistence of Gov. Patrick, the wind energy industry and its financiers.

Last Wednesday, two days before our Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, told us that motorists could help save the planet by changing more quickly to a lower gear, his underling Lord Hunt made one of the most absurd claims that can ever have been uttered by a British minister. Solemnly reported by the media, he said that by 2020 he hopes to see thousands more wind turbines round Britain's coasts, capable of producing '25 gigawatts (GW)" of electricity, enough to meet "more than a quarter of the UK's electricity needs".

Energy touches every corner of the economy and in countless ways can alter people's lives. Such a law would impact how much people pay to heat, cool and light their homes (it would cost more); what automobiles they buy and drive (smaller, fuel efficient and hybrid electric); and where they will work (more "green" jobs, meaning more environmentally friendly ones).

Adams believes so-called "green" energy decisions by governments are best made by paying attention to such old-fashioned ideas as democracy, due process and paying for the real costs of electricity. This as opposed to turning the energy market into a giant casino where governments arbitrarily decide winners and losers among energy producers and consumers by cabinet decree, after consulting with favoured environmental groups and renewable energy industry lobbyists.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life.

To paraphrase Pink Floyd, the energy bill that the House of Representatives may vote on as early as today would have us trade congressional hot air for the cool breeze of meaningful policy. Rather than take a realistic approach to America's energy needs, the bill offers heavily subsidized alternative fuel programs as an economic balm that will create jobs and an expensive cap-and-trade program that's likely to cost far more than Congress intends.

The Berkshire Natural Resources Council (BNRC) has pushed for wind-power siting criteria to ensure that all projects meet high standards for environmental review, production efficiency, and long-term economic sustainability. The proposed Act calls for the creation of standards, but only requires that they be met to the "maximum practicable extent." To grant ad-hoc exemption from standards compromises the objective of siting facilities in appropriate locations.

In a June 13 OpEd, "Maine power project will deliver," George Loehr, a consultant to Central Maine Power Co., argued that the $1.5 billion CMP has proposed to spend on its transmission grid is necessary to ensure that Maine's electric grid remains reliable. ...The point is whether or not spending $1.5 billion as CMP has proposed to spend it is a wise use of Maine ratepayer money.

Col. Howard "Dave" Belote, commander of the 99th Air Base Wing at the Nellis Air Force Training Range, pledged to work together early in the process on projects like renewable energy in an attempt to dispel the military's image as an obstacle. "We're not trying to stop development, but we want to say we're here, we're going to be here for a long time," Belote told Nye County Commissioners Tuesday.