"We are on the cusp of a global boom that will make the Internet explosion seem like a mild speed bump." This comment is guest columnist Peter Sinclair's. And no he is not referring to China, which is building one energy plant per week while eating our lunch. Sinclair is talking about how Michigan's energy needs and economy will be saved ... by the windmill. However, no energy policy, if implemented, is more expensive, unreliable and (ironically) environmentally unfriendly.

...to think that wind turbines are going to offer a long-term stimulus for tourism revenue is foolish. These giant wind turbines are a novelty to Michiganders right now. But as time goes by, the novelty will wear off. And as more and more wind turbines are built, there will be more and more people living here and paying the price for this "green" energy. ...and those living in the Thumb with these wind turbines towering over their homes will pay again in loss of property value and quality of life.

Wind farms will have a niche role in generating electricity for Michigan. But their role should not be mandated by legislation. The economics of wind power will determine if it is viable and cost effective. Mandating or subsidizing a marginal player in the power industry will, in the long run, be costly. Wind power's chief drawback is obvious: The wind doesn't blow constantly. ...Renewable energy has grown in recent years. And will continue to have a place producing electrical power. But the growth should be at a pace dictated by the economics of production, not by government fiat.

Besides the environmental advantages of an RPS, many states are finding an economic incentive. Texas has huge potential for wind energy and business interests there are pushing for it, but other states find the turbines unsightly. ...expensive and disputes the job-creation assertion. "Proponents of wind energy claim that mandating renewable energy will lead to job creation," Doug Roberts, Jr., the chamber's director of environmental and energy policy, told members of the House Committee on Energy and Technology. "However, proponents usually can't back up these claims with facts. "For a quick comparison, for under half the cost of a 10 percent renewable mandate, Michigan could build a new nuclear plant (cost $2 billion to $3 billion)," Roberts added. "A new nuclear plant would provide 1,200 megawatts of reliable energy and would create 1,800 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent jobs.

Jennifer Granholm ought to know better. ...she should understand the folly of forcing technologically impossible demands on an industry. But there she was last week, pitching a proposal that Michigan utilities get 25 percent of their power from renewable resources by 2025. ...Even if it were technologically and economically feasible to replace 25 percent of Michigan's energy with wind power, it's not politically possible. Replacing just one 1,000-megawatt coal plant would require 1,500 windmills. Meeting 25 percent of the state's estimated 2025 electricity demand would take 6,800 windmills, built at a cost of $30 billion. And each one would need 100 acres, so that's 680,000 acres of prime lakeshore land covered with giant turbines. It's not going to happen.

Wind turbines for the most part are symbolic gestures that would have us believe we are doing something good for our environment when in reality we are doing very little.

DER SPIEGEL spoke to German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel and to Utz Claassen, the CEO of Germany's third largest energy provider, EnBW, about whether nuclear energy can provide a way out of the climate crisis.......Claassen: It may be true that we would have made more progress in the area of renewable energy sources. But most renewable energy sources do not have the capacity to provide the base load.
SPIEGEL: "Base load" is the term for the output constantly required by the electricity grid.
Claassen: Without nuclear energy, we would have to cover the base load almost exclusively by means of fossil fuels, namely black coal and brown coal, meaning that we would have emitted more CO2 today, not less, even if it had proven possible to develop renewable energy source technologies more quickly. A study by the German Energy Agency (DENA) -- not a study by the energy industry, that is, but one by the center of competence for energy efficiency in Germany -- came to the following conclusion: When 37,000 megawatts of wind power capacity have been installed, that will make 6 percent of those fossil fuel or nuclear plant capacities that can provide the base load obsolete. So 2,300 conventional megawatt blocks of coal or nuclear energy could then be abandoned.

Why is Germany considering the building of up to 26 coal-fired power stations when they already have 17,000 wind turbines whirring away to the delight of the European green lobby? Why? Because German E.ON who are doing a roaring trade building windfarms in Scotland and Wales have admitted in their own reports that however many wind turbines they build or sell, without the right back-up they will not provide grid security and herald power cuts across Europe. E.ON UK must be aware of this shortcoming of their parent company's technology. Surely, it is only fair for them to warn their collaborators in Britain like Greenpeace, and FOE, to name but a few, before it is too late.

We applaud any effort to offer incentives to increase the use of renewable and alternative energy sources to power Michigan. But we hope the 25-percent goal can be reached by offering incentives, not by issuing mandates. The cheapest source of energy in the United States is coal. For the time being, at least, renewable sources of energy are a more expensive alternative. It would not bode well for economic development in Michigan if the state had astronomical energy costs.

From Barton, Vermont, to the German border with Denmark and from the shores of Lake Huron, to the Romney Marches of southern England, wind power advocates are fighting crosswinds from local residents. In Barton in mid-January, a referendum overwhelmingly rejected the wind power turbines that were planned near this upper Vermont community. ...In Germany, where one-third of the world's current wind power is generated, doubters have provoked a loud debate. The company that owns the grid that includes nearly half the wind-farms in Germany reported its wind farms generated only 11 percent of their capacity. The company said the winds vary so much the wind farm had to be backed 80 percent by the conventional power grid.

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.”

CAPE Town has, with much fanfare, just embraced wind power, that green panacea of sustainable and clean energy. But we are most unlikely to hear of its cost, its inefficiency and, indeed, its damage to the environment. We will hear that wind power helps curb our greenhouse-gas emissions, makes the country less dependent on fossil fuels and energy imports and -- the icing on the cake -- also creates jobs. Surely this is the solution to many of the world's biggest problems? To see if these alleged benefits actually stand up to closer scrutiny, let us look at a country held up as a shining example: Germany.

Most shocking of all is new evidence that the need to switch on and off base load fossil fuel power plants, to provide back up for unreliable wind turbines, actually gives off more carbon emissions than keeping them running continuously, thus negating any carbon savings from wind. Alas, only when our governments have allowed thousands more turbines to disfigure Britain’s countryside, not least by their grotesque bending of the planning rules, will the futility of the ‘great Wind Scam’ finally be recognised.

ROBIN Ball (Letters, August 5) has been a victim of the wind-energy deceivers. Those sails in Germany were not producing any energy at all.

The debate state residents and lawmakers should be having about how best to harness our untapped wealth of wind power has been reduced to an emotion-packed battle between local control and state mandates.

Have we spent all this time on research and attending meetings in order to have our valid concerns not taken seriously enough because select members on the commission have potential financial gain based on an ordinance written in favor of turbines being erected in our Township?

But there will be much debate over how much emphasis should be placed on renewable energy. For example, if, as PIRGIM insists, wind-turbine production has the potential to provide "over 10,000 new jobs" in Michigan, there are ancillary questions: Are wind turbines to become as commonplace -- or more so -- than cellular towers? What are the implications of that?

But before anyone starts building windmills and sun collectors across the country, the coal mines should be given a second chance, while Germany's nuclear powers stations should run for as long as they're still safe. It's all a question of getting the balance right.

If wind energy really is the energy of the future, as the developers claim, it must prove itself in the market without government subsidies. This has not yet happened anywhere; the projections are all based on artificial models with hidden costs -- costs for you and me, the taxpayers and consumers.