A few weeks ago I wrote about Public Act 295, called the “Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act.” This deceptively named law requires all Michigan utilities to produce 10% of their energy from renewable energy sources by 2015. Of course, the “renewable energy” they’re talking about is the kind we don’t have. Its water, biomass, and wind. It specifically excludes coal, nuclear and oil, three things we can buy or build that generate lots of cheap electricity. The kind of reliable, cheap power that people look for when they’re going to build a plant that employs people.

While debate stemming from a recent Michigan Wind Energy Resource Zone Board meeting in Bad Axe has mostly been about whether future wind turbine development should be allowed in the local area, there have been other concerns raised that should be acknowledged. They are in regard to the board's actual makeup: That there's too much representation from the utility and transmission industries, and not enough representation from other entities, including counties, public health, agriculture and the Thumb region.

I'm not against wind power. But why can't they make wind turbines more visually pleasing? Why do they have to be so ugly? Speaking for travelers, I think whoever designed these turbines littering the planet should be ashamed. And slapped for lousy design.

Property owners in Eagle, Bengal and Dallas townships of Clinton County have been approached by developers to install industrial wind power plant farms. Are they coming to your township too? These wind turbines affect the surrounding area, maybe even for miles within the view-shed. Evidence about the effects to our health, safety and declining property values are surfacing throughout this country, due to these 400' monsters.

Wind power kicks in 0.05 percent of the state's power. In spite of this marginal contribution, there remains a widespread misconception that giant wind turbines, situated in the right locations, are a viable alternative. Unfortunately, big wind farms have prohibitive costs for infrastructure and construction and are inefficient. ...Huge, rotating 80-foot blades catch the wind and are connected by a mammoth driveshaft to convert mechanical power into electrical energy. This is like having a diesel locomotive balanced on a 200-foot pole.

When we're outside, the noise created by the turbine echoes off the buildings and seems to be amplified. When the wind is strong, the noise is masked, but about 75% of the time, the turbines are the dominant sound outside. A big concern we have at this time, is that as the weather improves (which we hope it will soon) windows will open, weather proofing will be removed and the noise that dominates the outdoors will intrude on the indoors even more. At 1500 ft, we thought we may be safe, but we were mistaken. I don't know what the answer is for setbacks, but 1500 ft. is to close.

Current setbacks in Michigan allow a wind turbine to be constructed only 1,000 feet from an adjacent residence without the homeowners consent. This rule applies to all inhabited structures including schools, hospitals, churches, and public libraries. This distance of 1,000 feet is an arbitrary guideline recommended by the state of Michigan. Some residents who live too close to wind turbines complain of noise pollution and shadow flicker. Health problems and sleep disturbances have been documented in people living within one and a half miles of turbines.

For some reason she clings to her dream of Michigan leading a huge, well paying, windmill and solar panel industry. After decades of development the entire US wind generation industry employs less then 6500 people. Solar employs less than 2000. Over 750,000 jobs have disappeared from Michigan since Jennifer became Governor. If the entire renewable energy industry doubled in size and located everything in Michigan we're talking about a drop in the bucket when it comes to job creation.

"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.

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.

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?

On the flip side, the jury is still out on a number of issues regarding wind power. Local officials have decried the lack of environmental studies done in advance of the test site to determine the impact on local migratory bird populations and other wildlife.