[P]urchasers of green energy will find that wind energy produced in Pennsylvania is much more expensive than wind produced in, say, Montana. This mainly has to do with the location of wind resources. Montana has more areas with a higher sustained four wind than Pennsylvania. Also, since Montana is less densely populated, there are fewer troubles in siting the windfarms. The drawback, obviously, is that Montana is very far away, and electricity grids lose power over long distances. However, some researchers in Europe claim to have found a solution: DC current.

We're all for energy conservation and alternative energy sources being brought online as part of an overall U.S. energy strategy that also includes developing traditional energy sources, regardless of opposition from the enviro-regulation litigation industry. But reality has to fit in that strategy somewhere, not just feel-good rhetoric.

The Rahall plan may not be the final answer, but a gold-rush mentality that promotes such huge numbers of heavily-subsidized, industrial-scale wind farms with no controls on industry is not a good answer either. As a first-draft work-in-progress, Rahall's proposal might just be a step in the right direction.

...because of reliability problems, wind power must be supported by more traditional and reliable sources of generation, such as hydroelectric, coal-fired, nuclear, and natural gas generation. Wind generation is intermittent and sometimes poses challenges to load schedulers who manage the transmission grid systems.