But already some people are complaining about turbine's visual impact on the region's scenic landscape (Transcript story, Page 1 on Saturday). The 265-foot-high turbine can be seen clearly from many spots in Hancock, from Pontoosuc Lake in Lanesborough and Pittsfield and, we suspect, from a lot of other spots in surrounding communities. This is only one windmill. Imagine the complaints to come when turbines begin to sprout up in the 10s and 20s and hundreds, in Hancock, Florida, Monroe, Savoy and off the waters of Cape Cod - if these projects come to fruition. The wind turbines would be far taller than Jiminy's - from 350 feet to well over 400. Most would be built by out-of-state developers with substantial help from government subsidies (read taxpayers' subsidies) and would require significant tree cutting and road building, not only to get the turbines where they must be but also to connect them to the grid. The residents of Berkshire County should seriously consider if the end result would be worth it.

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.

Consumers are paying some of the highest electricity rates in the nation, which severely limits the ability to attract and retain good jobs. Yet we add further costs to every electric consumer's bill to fund programs that, though intended to promote energy efficiency and the use of renewables, lack proportion, rationality, accountability, and oversight. It's time to stop piling on these added charges to our electric bills and start examining and coordinating the myriad programs we have.........Consumers also pay about $25 million annually into a fund disbursed by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative to site and encourage projects using renewable power. Renewable power is a good thing, when it is economically viable, but for now electricity from sources such as wind and solar power is much more expensive than existing sources. We should not levy new taxes to fund more expensive power.

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.

"Whatever energy benefits this project may provide are far outweighed by the conflicts it imposes on the public's safety," said Vinick. "Radar interference is no longer a theory, but a demonstrated threat confirmed by DOD that Cape Wind must acknowledge. It is now time for Cape Wind to find a more suitable site for this project."

I have been doing hours of research and I am still convinced that this is a bad plan for Fairhaven. Even with the noise factor aside, it is not a good financial plan if you study it carefully. I believe that many members voted because of their fear of global warming, or they were influenced by skewed and erroneous information given to them by the developer and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.

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.

In the Williams/Whitcomb world of tabloid journalism, there is no room for thoughtful discussion, for weighing costs against benefits, for understanding that self-interest is at work on both sides of the issue or for any kind of honest discussion. Such thoughts would get in the way of the facile thinking and cynical blather that fills their book and that is now commonplace on TV, radio and the Internet. Do you find yourself bored now that Don Imus and Rosie O'Donnell are off the air? Does the Internet no longer meet your need for trash talk? Then read this book. You won't learn anything substantive from it, but it'll be great entertainment.

Mine is one of the homes on the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative shadow flicker and sound analysis. It's one of the homes represented by the letter "G," not a family, not a face, not a name, just the letter "G." In neighborhoods like mine live the families that will be affected by the shadow flicker and noise generated from the Little Bay wind farm. They are the nameless families in neighborhoods that have been given a life sentence of sound and light nuisance.

Wind fact: The energy produced is not stored; therefore, the turbines have to have full back-up systems. Are you willing to forego using electricity when the wind does not blow? Of course not. Therefore, wind needs full alternate energy back up. Subsidies: Take all the money behind putting up wind turbines and offer free compact fluorescent bulbs for everyone in Massachusetts and we would effectively cut energy use by far greater numbers than if we dotted every ridge in Massachusetts solidly with turbines! There are better ways and let's explore them before we wreck our natural landscapes in this beautiful commonwealth of Massachusetts.

There appears to be a lack of state rules and regulations for setbacks to residential homes, setbacks to wetlands, impacts on wildlife, health and welfare, safety risks and abutter notification of other surrounding towns....... We need a set of conforming state laws and regulations for all the cities and towns of Massachusetts.

Industrial wind farms, like the Cape Wind project, are on the rise and along with them public protest and opposition. Is it anti-environnmental to even question much less object? Not at all. In fact, questioning wind power does not mean anti-environment and in fact the opposite is most often the case. Those that question are those that care or they wouldn't be involved in the debate at all. In fact, being Green means you should question not only the viability of wind power but its potential negative impacts on the Earth, its communities and the living beings and ecosystems on which it depends. Making responsible and informed choices are the keys to living Green.

As the MMS is developing a foundation for good ocean-use decisions, it must carefully evaluate the Cape Wind project, not only in the context of environmental standards, but also economic ones. Unfortunately, MMS has so far refused to share its economic viability model for the Cape Wind project. If it continues to withhold that information, its review will be less than credible.

It is easy to commiserate with the towns of Florida and Monroe, which stand to lose thousands of dollars in revenue due to Wednesday's setback for the Hoosac Wind Project (Transcript, May 17). The decision by a state administrative magistrate that the 30-megawatt, 20-turbine project did not comply with wetlands laws may not be its death knell, but there certainly will be no building on Bakke Mountain and Crum Hill anytime soon. Good. Because it is far harder to commiserate with PPM Energy of Portland, Ore., which stands to gain millions in taxpayer-funded subsidies for building a wind farm that would generate just over a tenth of 1 percent of the electricity used in Massachusetts - and one that would replace not one iota of reliance on fossil fuels.

Sorry, Ms. Williams, but you have no right to classify us all as ‘narcissists'; we hold our anti-wind positions for a wide variety of reasons. Mainly, though, those who oppose wind do so because we've taken the trouble to learn the technical details, and we realize that wind power is in fact an expensive scam, driven solely by developers eager to cash in on the concerns over climate change. Were subsidy money and incentives to be removed, these folk would decamp overnight.

A Boston weekly newspaper once described the movie Z as a "comic book for liberals." The line implied that the film's hero was portrayed as nothing but heroic, and his foes as nothing but evil. In Cape Wind, Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb have written a comic book for supporters of the Cape Wind Energy Project. Their hero, developer Jim Gordon, resembles a pleasant Peter Parker bitten not by a radioactive spider but by the wind power bug. Energized, if you will, he battles a clutch of super villains including Sen. Ted Kennedy as well as Rep. Bill Delahunt's chief of staff, Mark Forest (referred to in true comics style as the "fixer.") And just as Spider-Man can't get a break from J. Jonah Jameson's Daily Bugle, so Gordon suffers at the hands of the Cape's daily paper.

We have the making of the perfect storm in regards to the amount of harm that could be inflicted on our residents. A community should never compromise the quality of life of its citizens for a small amount of financial gain.

The proposal to build industrial wind turbines on the site at Little Bay needs further study. A special Town Meeting scheduled for May 15 is being called to vote on the issue. Wind Wise has submitted a number of articles. One of these pertains to the noise study that is being done for the town by the University of Massachusetts. UMass does almost all of the noise studies for the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative and for wind developers.

Good intentions alone cannot assure the success of these projects. Before communities spend millions demonstrating their concern for the environment by erecting huge wind turbines or investing in other forms of energy production, they should be certain there will be a reasonable return on and proper management of those facilities.

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.