Gov. Tim Pawlenty is proposing $85 million in tax breaks to create jobs in solar energy, methane gas, and wind energy. According to the governor, we're going to have a whole new manufacturing sector building solar power plants and wind turbines, and his tax breaks will bring those new jobs to Minnesota. Isn't that a good idea? No. It's a bad idea.

What's the problem with the Pickens Plan? We've been told that the main obstacles to wind power are financial and technological. The Pickens Plan buys into this logic. But senior wind leaders know more. They have revealed that while technology and investment matter, one of their biggest challenges to installing large wind farms is building social acceptance. Don't Americans love wind power? A 2008 Zogby International public poll reported that 85 percent of the 7,000 Americans surveyed agreed that federal incentives should support wind-energy development. While polls show that most Americans overwhelmingly support wind power in theory, few communities are asking for large-scale wind projects in their back yards. ...While the Pickens Plan is bold, it lacks a nuanced understanding about the obstacles to wind power. Where there is a lack of social acceptance, it is often the result of industry players who assume that "green" power is always welcome and can operate outside the bounds of the democratic process. The Pickens Plan shares some of this hubris.

Fortunately, it appears that the seven-member Rochester School Board won't face a similar moment, now that they've backed out of a proposal that would have involved the district in the creation of a new wind-energy farm. It seemed like a good idea at the time, which was last year. The district, supposedly at no financial risk, would team up with developer Johnson Controls and more than 20 other school districts statewide to become owners of a 10- to 20-megawatt wind farm. The schools would send a positive message by becoming stakeholders in the growing clean-energy movement, and down the road it was possible that some financial windfalls would come Rochester's way. But the devil's in the details, and it didn't take long for serious doubts to arise about the project. Almost from day one, the funding mechanism for the wind farm has been puzzling to the point of being inexplicable, as have Johnson Controls' claims that the district would likely make a little money while incurring no financial risk.

Nuclear energy is a renewable, reliable, stable, homegrown energy source that does not emit greenhouse gasses, which many believe cause global warming. It works where other renewable sources are limited. It is impossible to produce solar or wind energy when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, and Minnesota's climate can be inconsistent in meeting those needs. Nuclear energy does not share those same limitations.

Passing paper laws is easy; the laws of nature are a little tougher to amend.

As a layperson researching what Minnesota calls a: "Wind Energy Conversion System" (WECS) or also known as a Wind Turbine, there is one issue that always rears its ugly head, "Noise". I found that Minnesota is one of the many states to specify maximum exposure levels of noise to its citizens. The Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030 describes the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of public health and welfare. Within this article I will attempt to provide a logical trace of the sound limiting requirements, along with some possible "delta" areas at the County Zoning Ordinance Levels with regards to a WECS application.

Recently, Gov. Pawlenty signed a renewable energy standard in Minnesota. While proponents claim this standard will protect Minnesota’s environment and resources and help reduce global warming is only rhetoric and not fact. This initiative will cost you the taxpayer millions and produce no positive impact in Minnesota.