Most of what the public knows about wind turbines comes from the media. Without a grounding in the sciences of thermodynamics and economics, the average person, eager to be politically and environmentally correct, fixates on the concept of "free energy," and closes his mind to further discussion of how expensive "free" can be. The public believes, more than it really knows, about wind turbines, and well-meaning advocates of wind as the solution to our climate and energy woes are unknowingly on a crash course with reality.

Industrial wind turbines, utility-scale turbines -- whatever you call them, they are popping up all over the state. Minnesota is requiring utility companies to be using 25 percent renewable energy by 2025. When I ask most people what they know about turbines, most reply, "They are green energy!" When I probe for more information, they know nothing more. I'd like you to join me on a short journey to see what it is like to live near a wind project.

Congress and many state legislatures, including Minnesota's, are exaggerating the potential for renewable energy, especially from wind, solar and biofuels. By assuming that wind can supply 20 percent to 25 percent of our electric power in the coming decade, or that farm fields can replace oil and gas fields, our representatives can avoid voting on hard choices.

The "going green" statement are becoming boring and redundant. Those of us in rural agriculture production have been "going green" for more than 100 years; the press just keeps changing the term. If wind were such a great idea here, why didn't the power companies build wind turbines years ago? The turbine I built five years ago is for sale. The reason: not enough wind!

I am a part of a group of landowners from the Eyota-Viola area who are involved in the planning stages of starting a wind farm east of Rochester. What a wonderful, green, and patriotic thing to do -- provide the public with green, renewable energy. What could possibly be wrong with wind energy? Well, I'm having second thoughts -- not about my friends and neighbors or the people helping develop this project, but wind energy in general.

As I drove into Fargo from Rollag, Minn., our home for seven years, I saw my signs of spring. The dogwood branches were blazing red, willow trees a bright lemon gold, and another bush, nameless, had brilliant orange branches. The drive was wonderful and painful at the same time. From Glyndon to the southeast corner of Clay County, a little of Otter Tail and Becker counties, the land will be covered with a possible 500 wind turbines.

Stutsman County officials should not be cowed by a wind developer whose business model condones theft of wind rights or be misled by a state legislator. They are to be commended for trying to protect landowner rights and safeguard the reputation of a growing and beneficial wind industry. If only our Dickey County Commission, the North Dakota Public Service Commission and the Legislative Assembly would show similar leadership.

We live in Leota Township not far from the present wind farm. Instead of peaceful rolling countryside, we get to look at a hundred hulking towers over 300 feet tall. Imagine if all the street lights in Worthington were all bright red and blinked on and off at the same time. Imagine if there were 10 windmills across the middle of Lake Okabena, and the people surrounding the lake got to look at and listen to these 300-foot towers with whirling blades in the daytime and the 10 bright red beacons flashing on and off at night.

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.

Coal mines always have been big business. Wind farms are getting to be. And when heavy-hitting companies such as North American Coal Corp., Minnesota Power and Florida Power and Light are eyeing an area of real estate, you bet it's consequential. The real estate isn't paltry; it's a lot of acreage in Oliver and Morton counties. Minnesota Power and FPL want to build separate wind farms. But the coal company says, "Wait a minute, we may want to mine where you guys are talking about putting up wind turbines. That won't work."

North Dakota Public Service Commissioner Kevin Cramer has the right idea when he said this week it is time to bring coal and wind-power industries together to talk about development in the state. FPL Energy of Juno Beach, Fla., is being joined by Minnesota Power of Duluth, Minn., in pursuing wind farms in Oliver and Mercer counties. FLP Energy already has filed papers with the state PSC for its 250 square-mile proposal in the two counties. Minnesota Power is expressing a desire for its own wind farm in Oliver County. The primary problem arises, however, if these wind projects with their expensive turbines are targeted for land that holds coal to be mined.

Wind energy is not an alternative for baseload generation, and the Big Stone II plant will meet Minnesota's increasing demand for baseload electricity. There still is a place for wind energy. The co-owners plan to purchase or install 850 megawatts of wind energy by 2015 in addition to constructing Big Stone II. But Minnesota will need baseload power - power that is available 24 hours a day/seven days a week - and wind energy cannot meet that reliability standard. ...Baseload generation is needed to help justify the million-dollars-a-mile that it costs to construct these transmission lines.

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.

More than 100 years ago, erratic wind was replaced by more-dependable coal, then oil, as a means to propel us across oceans. The same dependability is needed for electric power plants. A look at the State Wind Map reveals another wind problem for the Duluth area. Northeastern Minnesota has the lowest average wind velocity in the state. The best winds are far off, on Buffalo Ridge, in the southwest, requiring long and expensive transmission lines.

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.

America’s growing wind power industry is now facing new challenges — resistance to the wind turbines. Wind power critics have raised concerns about visual pollution, such as on Cape Cod and upstate New York where rows of wind turbines constructed or proposed can impact scenic skylines. America’s Defense Department has raised concern about the impact of multiple wind turbines on defense radar systems. Now, conservationists and coal advocates have asked Congress to seek an assessment of how many bats and birds are maimed or killed by wind turbines’ blades before the industry grows too large.

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.