Expanding "alternative" energies would not be alternative if they worked ("Expand energy alternatives," June 30), they would be just energy sources. ...If solar, wind power and biofuels are so great, they would not need the massive, taxpayer funded subsidies they now enjoy.

In the area of fossil fuel emissions, emotions seem to have obliterated logic. Pollution control laws have brought about necessary changes, much like that of sewage control laws. Virginia and California are the only two states that must buy electricity from other states at the present time. Therefore, when the crunch of limited supply comes, as it will, these two states will be the first to suffer. The experts looking into alternate energy sources are coming up with dismal solutions.

This is a peculiar project from the standpoint of its effect on the public. While we suspect that some environmental activists, those who favor the greening of the planet, will be in favor, at least as many will be opposed because of their perceived belief that the horizon-dominating structures will be unsightly at best, and ugly at worst. And beyond that, pretty much anyone who likes the outdoors and spends time there will see the project as an in intrusion on their right to enjoy unblemished landscapes. ...The turbines, of course, would be instantly recognizable for what they are; thousands of such structures are visible all over the central and southern parts of California, mostly in the Tehachapi and Palm Springs region. Will that visual impact doom the project? Possibly. The courts, last resort of Those Opposed To Anything and Everything, haven't yet been visited on the issue. But we suspect they will be.

Although politically popular, technologies such as wind and solar carry heavy liabilities in addition to being two to five times more expensive than average nuclear, coal or gas: -- These technologies are intermittent and volatile - every megawatt will require another megawatt of baseload resources to backfill, support and regulate it. -- They are small-scale and land-intensive - replacing one plant's output (Diablo Canyon) with solar would require more than 25 times the entire U.S. solar output and would require at least 40 square miles of solar panels. -- They require significant new transmission lines across environmentally sensitive and scenic parts of the state.

Wind power is cheap, but especially capricious in California's rugged terrain and varied climate. Wind turbines spinning like mad during a cool summer's night do little for California's electricity needs while motionless turbine blades on a hot day require the firing up of massive natural gas "peaker" plants that make up for the lack of wind power at a huge cost in fuel and CO2 emissions. And for all of wind's supposed "green" advantages, it takes about 10 times the steel and cement for wind to produce the equivalent amount of power as nuclear does 24/7, even on a calm day.

I think that somewhere along the line, we the payees need to get a refund from someone for a failed experiment called wind power before our bills are quadrupled again.

But as the number of turbines grew into the hundreds and then the thousands, concern arose among residents, adjacent landowners and environmental groups. Wind power can be a viable method of producing electricity, and it is widely considered a clean, safe and reliable source of energy. However, it does have adverse effects in locations such as the San Gorgonio Pass, including the loss of developable land and danger to local wildlife. Wind-energy companies claim that they only use a fraction of the land, leaving the rest as open space. But in essence, modern wind-energy projects involve massive industrialization of undeveloped land. The newer turbines that have been installed in recent years are large, typically 100 meters (330 feet) tall. Indeed, some developers of future projects are proposing turbines that are 125 meters (410 feet) tall. Local homeowners and adjacent landowners are the ones immediately affected, and they are now very active in opposing any new wind-energy projects. Other opposing parties are residential developers and the city of Desert Hot Springs. The latter sees a tangible loss of developable land south of Pierson Boulevard, an area the city is considering annexing for future growth. In addition to the impact wind-energy projects have on land, the structures cause problems in the air as well. The tips of the turbine blades reach speeds of 200 mph to 300 mph, depending on wind speed, which can harm animals. As a result of studies in other areas, such as Altamont Pass near San Francisco, we know that wind-energy systems cause deaths among many species, particularly raptors, owls and other migratory birds. A major concern for environmental groups, including The Sierra Club, is bird and bat mortality.

It may be the time to consider how wind farms fit in with the values which the Wilderness Society represents. If the Society is prepared to go through such a prolonged and worthy fight to save the forests, with all the financial and emotional costs involved, it would be consistent to regard wind farm development with the same scepticism with which it regards the wood chip industry. Both are potent adversaries to the values which I hope we share.

The potential for growth, most analysts argue, is clear. But bottlenecks and political setbacks, not to mention technological glitches, will create many bumps in the road ahead. Indeed, fears that the most euphoric investors were overlooking such obstacles seem to have contributed to a sharp fall in clean-energy stocks earlier this year-although they have since recovered much of the lost ground. Such jitters caused several green-energy firms to cancel planned flotations. “There’s legitimate debate about a couple of segments,” says Keith Raab, boss of Cleantech Venture Network. In some instances, valuations accorded to firms with no profits-and little chance of making any soon-were reminiscent of the excesses of the dotcom bubble. As Douglas Lloyd, of Venture Business Research, puts it, “There’s too much money chasing too few opportunities. How is it possible that this many solar companies are going to succeed? They’re not.”

The temptation for Silicon Valley voters would be to ignore the intricacies of the proposition and simply decide a ``yes'' vote would send a message to oil companies and to the world that California intends to lead the way in developing alternative energy sources. That would be a mistake. We strongly support the concept of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs helping California research and develop technological breakthroughs that will eliminate our foolhardy reliance on Middle East oil. But two fundamental flaws in Proposition 87 force us to recommend a ``no'' vote.

California's power shortage confirms that all of the hoopla over wind energy's credentials as a clean and renewable source of electricity is undercut by the reality of its unreliability. During an extremely hot week in August, when air conditioners were cranked up and the state was on the brink of rolling blackouts, how much help did the state get from its beloved 2,500 megawatts of wind power? Only 4 percent of its capacity, according to the California Independent System Operator, which is responsible for the state's electricity grid. Southern California Edison's 2,200 megawatts of wind capacity generated only 45 megawatts. In other words, wind energy works great — except when you need air conditioning.

ON the way there from L.A., you first pass through the wind farms in the mountain pass and the creepy rows of wind turbines that render the landscape alien and forboding. Harvesting wind energy seems a good idea, but still, the hills seems to have been colonized by some relentlessly churning alien life-form—I felt like I understood the concept of visual pollution at a visceral level. The whirring blades are mesmerizing, in a bad way. They create a delirium of planes and angles shifting and changing in a lulling rhythm, making it impossible to see anything else. It’s a wonder there aren’t more accidents on that winding downhill stretch of the freeway, where it seems like the average traveling speed is around 85 miles per hour.

WHO wouldn't like to hit Big Oil where it hurts - in the wallet? Proposition87, however, could end up costing the state and taxpayers for years to come. While promising to bring in close to a half-billion dollars annually from taxes on oil drilling in California, none of those dollars will go in the treasury. Not one penny will be used to pay down the state's debt, ensure education funding or provide more health insurance to working families. Likely, California's property taxes and corporate income taxes could be reduced if oil producers decide to pump less of the black gold from California fields to avoid the extraction tax. Also, Californians aren't likely to see any immediate benefits from the measure for many years. That's because proceeds from the tax would fuel a $4 billion program for alternative energy research and provide start-up capital for technology companies.

At this writing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and other lawmakers are haggling over the final details of AB 32, a sweeping measure meant to establish California as the world leader in reducing the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Schwarzenegger wants not just hard caps on emissions but a market-based system in which incentives are created for businesses to reduce emissions through trading of pollution credits. Núñez is lukewarm on such a “cap and trade” system. Here's our recommendation to the governor: Quit negotiating and simply veto whatever measure comes your way.

The state's electricity transmission and distribution system is antiquated and dilapidated. A recent Department of Energy study cited Southern California as one of two U.S. regions (New York is the other) facing critical shortages of power lines. Grid under-capacity in the Bay Area is severe. A member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission called the transmission bottleneck between Northern and Southern California "the worst electric supply situation in the entire country."

The fair landscape of Coachella Valley's western end is blighted by scores of ugly windmills. Their production of electricity goes into the state grid. Energy produced here should stay here to lessen local bills. And if we must suffer their presence, keep them in operation constantly to benefit us further.

Key to Enron's success was deregulation of the electricity market, so that it could more easily be manipulated by developers and brokers such as Enron without having to worry about the whole expensive package of energy delivery, i.e., infrastructure maintenance. They also transformed wind power from an experimental alternative in tune with the environment into an industry that mocks environmental concerns.

..because the turbines produce power in response to the wind rather than actual demand, much of it -- 84% of western Denmark's wind production in 2003, by one analysis -- has to be exported (i.e., dumped) because it is not needed. Despite a landscape already saturated with turbines, it appears therefore that they produce only about 3% of the electricity Denmark uses.