I've been neutral on the wind farm topic - until my recent walk on Dowses Beach in Osterville ...Absolutely mars the landscape.

Now we find that Elecon, the manufacturer of the city's first industrial wind turbine, doesn't have that many clients either. This will be their first U.S. installation. How do we know their manufacturing standards are up to snuff? The Center for Wind Energy Technology (CWET) reported that 60 percent of the wind turbines survived a cyclone in Gujrat, India, in 1998. However, 14 out of 14 Elecon turbines were destroyed. Didn't anybody notice this? Elecon pulled out of the wind turbine business for a while, and now they are back in. Did anyone find out why?

I am writing this to make clear my vehement opposition to the wind turbine proposed by Mark Richey Woodworking. It will be constructed in the Newburyport Industrial area at 40 Parker St. I do support renewable energy but I feel that the location for this turbine is a highly unsuitable one. I do not believe that the Newburyport Zoning board (ZBA) thoroughly investigated the impact that these projects would have before approving them. This turbine will have a direct and very negative impact on the neighborhoods that surround them.

I am extremely opposed to the location of the 300-foot, high wind turbine at the Mark Richey property, 49 Parker St. I am not opposed to alternative energy but, just as the discovery of X-rays had everyone getting new "pictures" taken, to later discover the ramifications of incorrect use of this technology, we cannot build enormous hazardous turbines in such close vicinity to habitable structures industrial and residential.

The Ocean State recently granted a New Jersey-based renewable energy firm the right to build an industrial-size wind farm about 20 miles off the coast of Rhode Island. DeepwaterWind CEO Chris Brown told the Associated Press his firm builds turbines on large platforms originally designed for offshore drilling rigs, which means they can operate in deep waters and out of sight of land. He expects to build around 100 turbines offshore. "What we've really focused on is that we want to be beyond the horizon," Brown said. "We don't think that you have to choose between...the view and the environment."

In the ongoing debate on these pages regarding Cape Wind's proposal to install 130 towers in Nantucket Sound, facts often have taken a back seat to emotion. ...A key question is: How much will the project cost and what is the impact of the cost and the ongoing maintenance and security on the cost of power produced by the proposed Cape Wind turbines? ...The financial data are easily provided by the folks at Cape Wind. Instead, by withholding vital information about the project, Cape Wind has fostered an atmosphere of mistrust and encouraged circulation of misinformation by proponents and opponents alike. Let's have all the facts.

In his recent letter ("Wolf showed courage in supporting Cape Wind"), Elrick misrepresents the FAA's current position on Cape Wind and totally ignores the safety concerns of all three local airports. In fact, in a January 2008 letter to Rep. William Delahunt, the FAA cited a "presumed hazard determination" for Cape Wind due to concerns for local air traffic and radar interference to air traffic control systems.

There is a face-off brewing between two federal agencies over the fate of birds in Nantucket Sound, centering on the Cape Wind energy project. At issue is whether the U.S. Minerals Management Service defers to the cautionary advice of its expert peer, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, or will it ramrod the Cape Wind project forward, driven by political considerations? ...In the apparent hurry to permit the Cape Wind project this year, Minerals Management seems poised to ignore the Fish & Wildlife Service. Citizen action is needed to get the message across to Minerals Management: "Proceed with caution. Do not play 'wind turbine Russian Roulette' with endangered species. Move Cape Wind elsewhere, out of harm's way!"

Often, the visual impact of 130 wind turbines as tall as the Statue of Liberty in the middle of Nantucket Sound is presented as a clash of aesthetic sensitivity vs. alternative energy reality. But the National Trust for Historic Preservation has reminded the U.S. Minerals Management Service that real laws and mandates exist, and it says MMS is not going by the book in its evaluation of the Cape Wind project. ...Nobody, the National Trust included, expects that the views at the Kennedy Compound or the Nantucket historic downtown will remain forever unaltered. But Congress has decreed that all efforts must be made to preserve the integrity of historic sites, and the MMS must comply.

But here in Gloucester, it seems that government is "by the developer, for the developer." The City Council has cast a unanimous vote to grant a special permit for a private-use wind turbine that Mac Bell plans to install on the banks of the Annisquam River, rising 240 feet into the air and only 315 feet from a playground. Sixty neighbors who live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed turbine site signed a petition opposing it. Ward 3 Councilor Steven Curcuru dismissed this number as "insignificant."

Following an overwhelming display of project opposition at the March public hearings, Cape Wind is now attempting to spin a batch of seriously critical comments into good news. Cape Wind's Mark Rodgers recently claimed that the vast majority of the public comments supported the project. But an MMS spokesperson has since confirmed that Cape Wind's claim is merely "their interpretation" of the comments available for review on the MMS Web site. "If a respondent replied that he or she ‘favored the project,' that has little use to us for analytical purposes," wrote Drew Malcomb, MMS chief of public affairs. "If the respondent replied that additional information or data exists on commercial-fishing runs, for example, that would be of great interest to us and useful as we develop our final EIS."

I would not worry about a wind farm off of Block Island any time soon. The technology and cost of placing offshore wind turbines in deep (more than 75 feet) and unprotected (exposed to ocean swells) waters simply does not exist. Real wind developers, like Cape Wind Associates, know this and have not responded to Gov. Donald Carcieri's request for proposals. ...Why would a state publish an RFP for a project that is not possible even with the state-of-the-art for this technology? Great question! Wind energy is sexy ... and seductive ... and this clouds people's minds and makes politicians offer it as solution that is not economically feasible and investors (who, if they did their homework, should know better) pour money into companies.

The state ocean management bill, a compromise hammered out by a conference committee last week and approved by the House and Senate this week, is a mix of good and bad. On the positive side, the compromise scuttles House-passed legislation that would have opened Buzzards Bay and other state ocean sanctuaries to unlimited renewable energy development. If Gov. Deval Patrick signs the new bill, the state would only allow "appropriate scaled" projects in ocean sanctuaries. Of course, "appropriate-scaled" still needs to be defined. ... Given the need for renewable energy, the bill is a good compromise, and state Sen. Robert O'Leary, D-Barnstable, should be commended for his role in securing the positive aspects of the legislation. ...At the same time, Patrick could make the bill even better.

But a new proposal for a deep-water, off-shore wind farm answers all the skeptics' objections and, in addition to its environmental benefits, could be an economic boon to southeastern Massachusetts. Blue H USA LLC has recently installed the world's first deep-water windmill off the coast of Italy and now wants to bring that technology to the South Coast, which has been referred to as the Saudi Arabia of wind energy because of its dependable North Atlantic winds. Rather than fight critics, Blue H has embraced their concerns and worked to satisfy them, maximizing the positives of the technology while minimizing the perceived negatives. The solution? Locate the turbines out to sea on floating - but stabilized - platforms similar to oil rigs, far away from any people or animals.

The [New England] region's power system has had a long history of dependability, but electricity costs have been an issue for businesses and residents for decades. As the region plans ahead, New England's policymakers face a series of decisions that will have an abiding impact on our energy future. ...Economic, reliability and environmental goals are not always perfectly aligned when it comes to electricity generation and transmission. Whatever path policymakers choose to take will require trade-offs. How New England officials balance these sometimes conflicting goals will demonstrate our priorities, impact the regional economy and determine which objectives we can realistically achieve.

Wind energy opponents often rattle off a litany of objections: Windmills aren't aesthetically pleasing (a notion many dispute); they pose a danger to migrating birds; they're noisy; they're inefficient and expensive. But a new proposal for a deep-water, off-shore wind farm answers all the skeptics' objections and, in addition to its environmental benefits, could be an economic boon to Fall River. Blue H USA LLC has recently installed the world's first deep-water windmill off the coast of Italy and now wants to bring that technology to the SouthCoast ...It turns out answering the critics is actually a benefit to the technology, as 90 percent of the potential energy from wind is well offshore in deep water.

The Zoning Board of Appeals made some important decisions last month (April 17th) based on verbal assurances from the developers. ...The skyline of our city is at stake, the protection of neighbors from catastrophe and the potential of wind energy to be a key part of the future economy of our city. Both our architectural legacy and wind energy are among the most important assets that we own as a city and that we share with each other. They are, in a sense, like our commons. We should have proof, before we give them away, that they will be used to their best advantage.

The Environmental Policy Act signed into law in 2005 called upon the secretary of the interior to promulgate regulations by May 5, 2006 to site offshore renewable energy projects. And still there is no regulatory process under which the Cape Wind precedent-setting proposal for alternative use of the submerged public land, Nantucket Sound, is being reviewed. Therefore, the reviewing agencies are incapable of providing our/their informed consent regarding the Cape Wind application ...The Cape Wind project is being reviewed within the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). ...Absent standards and rules that will apply to the Cape Wind permit review, the public and agencies are denied meaningful participation in this NEPA process.

I think the first letter written by state Division of Marine Fisheries director Paul Diodati regarding Cape Wind, dated Feb. 20, that recaps many of the fishing industry's concerns, should be given more weight than the second version. I think observation of the president of Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership, Ed Barrett, regarding the long arm of Deval is spot-on, as Patrick has demonstrated a propensity to change laws if necessary to help his friends overcome obstacles. Deval raised eyebrows when he recommended changes to Chapter 91 to accommodate Cape Wind.

There is nothing "laughable" about the biological significance of avian mortalities by wind turbines. As Donald Michael Fry, Ph.D., director of pesticides and birds program of the American Bird Conservancy testified to Chairwoman Bordello and members of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans during the Oversight Hearing "Gone with the Wind: Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats" on May 1, 2007: "While the actual number of birds killed by wind turbines is unknown, estimates have been made in the range of 30,000 to 60,000 per year at the current level of wind development."