As a tourist who visits the area, I notice what is transparent to most locals, and for me the skyline of Fairhaven is priceless. If the citizens of Fairhaven allow the wind power project to be built at the current proposed location, I believe you will be making a terrible mistake. The town may gain some money in taxes and offset some electrical energy costs, but it will not offset the loss in green space and, more importantly, the beauty of Fairhaven's historic charm.

No matter how important wind power is, not every spot is suitable for a turbine. Conversely, a turbine's visibility from the homes of frustrated neighbors doesn't make its location wrong...........Residents should also take a look at the video expected to be released today by opponents of the Little Bay project on their Web site, WindWiseFairhaven.com. It will document complaints of people who live near the Hull turbines.

Few are aware of the staggering profit by way of contracts payable to avian specialists in an industry borne from wind towers that kill birds. This service industry is referred to as "Adaptive Management," and/or "long-term environmental monitoring." Its value is $2 million to $3 million first year startup for a wind project, based on the value of Altamont, Calif., wind tower monitoring contracts. These contracts represent $1 million per year paid to the monitor during construction phase, and impose terms as Mass Audubon has in their "Challenge" press release: "We also propose adoption of an Adaptive Management Plan that includes a rigorous monitoring program beginning at the construction phase and continuing for at least three years post-construction." ..........Mass Audubon is in a position to profit by counting bird carcasses, "monitoring," while attempting to "solve" this problem; the industry term for this is "mitigation," if Cape Wind is permitted and construction begins.

If common sense prevails, Salem will abandon this out-of-scale, clearly inappropriate location for such an enormous commercial-industrial wind turbine immediately. If not, then the City Council should exercise its legislative authority and vote it down.

We applied a couple of years ago, using a consultant, for a grant to help with the installation of solar panels on one of our buildings. ...After all of this preparation we were notified that the grant would not be given due to lack of funds. However, it was suggested that since there were few requests for wind turbines, we likely would get a grant.

Residents raised those exact concerns months ago before the turbine was built, but their worries were dismissed by a stack of reports and experts who said those problems, if they existed at all, would be so insignificant, that no one would notice. And what's troubling about all the experts and turbine proponents being so far off the mark on these issues is the fact that most were equally dismissive about concerns the neighbors have raised about safety.

For many, wind energy here translates into the long, continuing battle over a 130-turbine wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound. But more turbines are planned on land and potentially for additional offshore sites. And for Cape Codders who are not yet aware of this - or of the ramifications for families, homeowners and communities - the assembly's action is a welcome second chance to get up to speed and have a voice in whether turbines will continue to sprout up all over the Cape.

Let's assume, for a moment, that the federal government approves Cape Wind's plan to build an industrial-sized wind farm in the middle of Nantucket Sound. After all, the U.S. Minerals Management Service, which is reviewing the project, is expected to issue its draft Environmental Impact Statement late this summer. After reviewing thousands of comments on the draft, the MMS may issue a final EIS sometime in 2008. If it does, no one will be surprised when someone or some group files a lawsuit to block construction of the wind farm.

Falmouth selectmen, according to a recent article in the Cape Cod Times, continue to "sympathize" with the desperate plight of wind turbine abutters ...But the board of selectmen is sticking to its so-called "statement of principles," a shockingly callous and misguided policy statement that proclaims that the board intends to earn enough revenue from the wind turbine to pay the electric bills of the wastewater treatment plant and the debt service on the machines.

Energy efficiency is by no means a permanent solution, but it should be a permanent part of the solution. Sensible energy use, combined with new power resources, is the only workable answer for New England.

Hilltowns need to make sure their interests are taken into account when distant investors and persons advocating this technology, who won't be hosting it in their backyards, eye our ridgelines for their projects

Robert Sullivan's review of "Cape Wind" (June 17), about the battle over the development of a wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, made me wonder why a majority of Cape Cod and island residents would oppose a project that promised them clean, cheap, non polluting renewable energy at a time when everyone is focused on making America energy independent. You can start with the fact that this project won't deliver lowercost energy because offshore wind is by far the most expensive form of energy. You can then wonder what all the fuss is about when you understand that at its optimum operating efficiency (an average of 170 megawatts, according to Cape Wind's own Web site, and not the 468 megawatts its proponents claim) it would produce just 1 percent of New England's electricity supply. And because wind energy is inherently unpredictable (it depends on when the wind is blowing and cannot be stored), fossil fuel plants would always have to be online as reserve power to keep our lights on. Concluding his review, Sullivan mentions the growing opposition to a wind farm proposal off the coast of Long Island. This opposition is bolstered by the economic facts of the project - according to previously confidential documents obtained by Newsday, energy from the proposed wind plant would cost Long Island ratepayers as much as double the wholesale cost of energy.

Like it or not, the future of Newburyport rests soundly on the aesthetic value of its historic architecture, ecological resources, wildlife and beautiful views. The question for every citizen after knowing what impacts these towers will produce will be, "What benefit is it to the city to have these towers present and how will it affect my home?"

The problem at this point could not be clearer: the town's wind turbines have intruded on the lives of residents in that area. The community must now find a solution. More bickering, more accusations of unfairness, of conspiracy will do nothing, nothing whatsoever, to help get to that solution. We understand the distress of the residents in the neighborhood of the turbines. It is clear something has to be done.

The headlines focused on NStar's commitment to purchase 27 percent of the expensive power to be generated by Cape Wind - something the utility had been loath to do. Less noticed was another concession NStar made: that it would not use any hydropower to meet state-mandated renewable energy targets for the next five years.

What hasn't received national attention is the stunning taxpayer subsidized profits the developer is expecting to reap from the project. A study by the Massachusetts based Beacon Hill Institute found that the proposed $1 billion dollars in subsidies from the project would contribute to a nearly 25% return on equity by investors - more than twice the average historical for return for all corporations. Add taxpayers to that list of groups opposed to the project.

This piece was written by Mark J. Cool, a resident of Falmouth, Massachusetts. Mark lives 1500 feet from one of the two wind turbines installed by the town. He provides a detailed look at the history and impacts of the decision to site the towers so close to where people live.

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.

However, residents should not view Minuteman's $220,000 carrot as a magic bullet to solve the town's fiscal woes. The payments wouldn't start until the turbines are in use - and that's at least three years down the road. Given the progress of other projects in this state, three years is a decidedly optimistic estimate. The Transcript has generally been against the development of large windmill projects in the Berkshires, largely because of their environmental impact and because of the lack of a cohesive plan on where to site them. We are still undecided about the merits of this particular project ...The townspeople are the ones who will have to live with the turbines. We urge them to consider carefully all the pros and cons before casting their votes at the Jan. 3 special town meeting to consider the Minuteman bylaw.

We're not anti-wind. We're not anti-industry. We believe that wind farms have a role to play on appropriate land parcels, but this bill would force municipalities to adhere to the state's approval criteria and it would effectively silence opposition from property owners affected by a wind turbine installation.