This morning's St. Lucie Board of County Commission meeting could see the end of the Florida Power & Light wind turbine project on Hutchinson Island. But don't bet on it. Rumor has it some commissioners would prefer to "punt" and delay a decision until they have more information. ...The wind turbine opposition comes from a multitude of angles: the 40-story height and appearance of the towers and their whirling blades wider than a jumbo jet; the possibly lethal effects on wildlife (especially birds); the unpleasant "strobe" effects spinning turbine blades tend to have on those living nearby; the noise that's been described as like a wrapped brick in a clothes dryer; reduction in property values; the possible safety threat to the nuclear plant from what's attractively called "blade throw," should one ever come off in high winds. Hey, it's happened.

Wind power is green and clean. All it takes is land, transmission lines, substations, collection systems, windmills that are 40 stories high and constant wind of 12 miles per hour. The nine experimental low-wind-speed turbines Florida Power and Light plans to build may provide electricity to 2,500 homes. May, that is, if the wind blows 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Otherwise, the windmills will stand tall and still. FPL wishes to experiment with unregulated low-wind-speed turbines in St. Lucie County.

This one is about corporate tax avoidance through massive tax subsidies lobbied for by Enron, which was the largest wind developer in the United States before its demise and which pioneered the tax shelter as a commodity. FPL Group paid zero federal income tax in 2002 and 2003 despite more than $2 billion in profits, largely because of the wind projects of its wind subsidiary, FPL Energy, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. But, now it has gotten so bold that it is proposing putting wind turbines where we don't have sufficient winds to get close to the 30 mph required to reach the turbines' rated capacity. Destroying environmentally sensitive lands on Hutchinson Island and the quality of life for people in a populated area for an industrial wind plant is like burning down rain forest to build a solar farm.

It does not seem wise to invest in wind-turbine energy infrastructure within a coastal high-hazard zone, especially if sustainable long-term energy development is the goal ("FPL shifts sites for wind turbines," Jan. 18). Hutchinson Island is an eroding barrier island subject to frequent over-wash by storm events. The area south of the proposed sites has been an inlet nearly six times, and Blind Creek was cut open by the 2004 storms. ...The public has not received assurances, much less data, as to whether these turbines can withstand hurricanes. The review process itself started off on the wrong foot. All but one county commissioner tried to rubber-stamp this project without public comment or sound data.

I simply can't get past the feeling the wool's being pulled over our eyes by FPL. I base this on gut reaction and online research. From what I can see, this project has much more going for it in PR/political/financial terms than anything remotely to do with energy production. Why? The site is way too small to offer any sensible economic advantage. Yes, it might tell FPL whether wind power along Florida's coast is viable, but I suspect they know it isn't already. A Department of the Interior study puts all of Florida's coastline firmly in the "marginal" category. Even if turbines did produce meaningful amounts of electricity, experience in Europe (about 10 years ahead of us in energy policy terms) suggests it may be more trouble than it's worth. ...So if it's not useful, practical or financially rewarding, why on earth is FPL so hell-bent on building turbines here? My guess is that with federal tax credits, tax write-offs for depreciation and so on, it may actually be more lucrative for utilities not to produce power.

The public has not received assurances, much less data, as to whether these turbines can withstand hurricanes. The review process itself started off on the wrong foot. All but one St. Lucie County commissioner tried to rubberstamp this project without public comment or confident data. Florida Power & Light told the community at the coal plant hearings there wasn't enough wind here to be productive, presumably to get their coal plant. FPL seems only to be looking at the price of land - not at science.

The news last week that Florida Power & Light has abandoned a quest to site wind turbines on St. Lucie County public beach land must have come as a relief to some. To the rest of us, it provided more questions than answers. Why, for instance, would FPL now subject itself to even more environmental scrutiny on state-owned land? Wouldn't that put back their timetable even more than using county-owned sites? And why is FPL only looking at a grand total of nine windmills here? Look at their other wind farm operations in Texas and California, where turbines number in the hundreds or thousands. ...I still don't get it. Our tiny project will never generate enough juice to make a dent in demand. Folks in St. Lucie aren't happy at using public land for windmills. Yes, we might find out that Florida wind is strong enough, but the scale is all wrong even if that's the case.

Fortunately, Florida Power & Light Co. has withdrawn plans to build 400-foot windmills on two oceanfront parks in St. Lucie County. Unfortunately, moving three of the wind turbines to other public land bought for conservation would be no improvement. It would be the same problem in a new location. No matter how much the state wants to emphasize renewable energy, allowing such private projects on preservation land would set a bad precedent for the entire state. ...If, as a utility spokeswoman said, FPL wants to be a good neighbor, it's easy: Stop the push to build windmills on conservation lands.

The public beaches that Florida Power & Light would like to use for its windmills were obtained "for environmental protection and compatible outdoor recreation." The management plan includes "to preserve a section of the coastline from further development, ...If we cannot honor past commitments, why even bother making commitments?

The Florida Public Service Commission demands that electrical utilities provide reliable power at reasonable rates. Despite this mandate, Gov. Charlie Crist signed a series of executive orders requiring utility companies to begin work by Sept. 1 towards generating at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources with an emphasis on solar and wind energy. Although well-intentioned, these executive orders were apparently signed without considering that Florida does not have high-intensity sunlight as found in low-humidity deserts and lacks sufficient wind energy to make wind turbines feasible.

As one who has been in close proximity to those behemoths in operation, let me pass on my thoughts. First, something that large spinning above you creates a high level of anxiety. Then there is the swooshing sound as each of the huge, rotating propeller blades passes by in concert with the whine of the generator. In addition, the blades' moving shadow creates a strobe effect which will be cast directly on the parks before and after mid-day, the otherwise most popular time to visit. ...Those parks are for the pleasure of the taxpayers who fund them, not the benefit of Florida Power & Light, which would take that pleasure away with the help of our elected governing body. Commissioners, do not let this turn into an excuse for another first-class junket. View a video, if you must, and just say no.

The discussion on the proposed windmills on our coast seems to have ignored the serious potential of devastating damage that these structures could cause. Although they "would be designed to withstand hurricane-force winds" it is doubtful that they could be engineered to be completely secure in a Category 3-4 or 5 hurricane or a tornado. The blades of these turbines are designed to produce optimum benefits from the wind, which means to me that if they were detached in a hurricane or tornado, they would become lethal missiles that could slice through not only nearby homes, but would pose a grave danger to the nuclear power plant facilities as well.

Seeking a new source of energy for this region, Florida Power & Light wants to build nine 400-foot wind turbines along the beach. Some would be on the company's Hutchinson Island property. No problem there. Some, though, also would be at Frederick Douglass and John Brooks parks, which the public bought to preserve. Problem. ...It would be stupid, however, for St. Lucie to give up beachfront at a time when it's so expensive to acquire. And make no mistake, the public would be giving up beachfront, even though some county commissioners have maintained that beachgoers would see no difference. Who are they kidding? A 400-foot turbine that causes the light to flicker would have no more impact than a seagull?

As much as Florida needs more clean energy alternatives, giant windmills don't belong on St. Lucie County beaches that were bought with public money to preserve. Florida Power & Light Co., whose representatives are lobbying county commissioners, wants to put five wind turbines on the company's property near the utility's nuclear plant on Hutchinson Island. ...Commissioner Doug Coward supports clean energy, but he correctly questions the legality of using public land for private profit. He also worries that the windmills could "change the character of the landscape" and prevent people from enjoying the rare South Florida experience of less-developed beaches.

First it was the coal-fired plant they tried to build in western St. Lucie County, until residents had a hissy, which forced them to try again in Glades County, where more hissy fits followed and, with encouragement from state officials, they officially threw in the towel. Under pressure to find a source of more electricity, preferably one that might not pollute the air, the utility is looking hard at harnessing the power of wind. Which is a noble thing. But noble goes only so far.