So where do we put them? That's the big thing- people want renewable energy but want to shut it down. No more oil let's use natural energy. Solar will not maintain demand and takes land out of production. IL has added many of these turbines in the last few years. They're not in areas hunting is done...they're in large open expanses of corn and bean fields. It seems we have a choice. Would nuclear be a better option? Or n

The article goes way too far. I have stood next wind farms in a gale and was impressed by the quiet, and find them fine to look at. As for the money farmers get for placement, i like the idea.

Is this article for real? Did the Oil and Gas industry pay for this? So is Emily Brooks for an increase in coal fired power plans? Nuclear? If you're against wind energy what is your alternative? Are you also against solar energy? 
 
Wind energy could be part of the plan that saves small farms. They could have wind power AND farming on the same plot of land. Small farmers have it hard enough without people making value judgments about how they go about their own survival. I'm going to make a wild guess that the Ms. Brooks is not herself a farmer.  
 
Where in this article does it explain the claim that wind farms a "scam"?  
 
This is just a bash on the wind industry without anything constructive added to the dialog. 
 
This is bad journalism.

OK, fair enough, and sorry to come off so harsh. Putting the facts and links out there is good and starting and dialog is good. I'll retract some of what i said. (The title of your article does end with a question mark). There has just been a lot of opposition (without a stated alternative) to the wind industry in New England (I live in CT) and the backlash never seems to be held accountable to the obvious, which is that their opposition is essentially an advocacy for the status quo. And what we have now is neither clean nor sustainable nor, I would argue, good for farmers.  
 
I personally like the aesthetics of wind mills (though admittedly I haven't had a lot of exposure to the their sound.) and I like the fact that we don't have to cut into the earth, harvesting energy sources that were millions of years in the making, to get to it. The same goes for solar.  
 
I think if we commit to renewable energies with open eyes and resourcefulness we will find solutions to the side effects that will surely come along, but let's not shut it down before it even gets started.

I take great offense to Matthew's posting above and thank Emily for having the courage to investigate the issue surrounding wind energy. I suspect Matthew works for a developer and this kind of retaliation is typical of a developer who fear full investigation into this boondoggle called renewable energy. If scientific methodology were applied, one would find out that wind is intermittent, unreliable, non dispatchable, inefficient (25% of nameplate capacity as the yearly avg. with 10% being delivered 50% of the time) I am a farmer who was approach to host turbines and I can assure you after 4 years of researching wind energy, it is a scam of the highest order. The contractual issues alone made me turn and run with details like first-rights-of-refusal and postponement of mortgages. Farmers do not seem to realize that these contracts represent full control over your land rights. Even things like rights over aggregates and and water can potentially be in the hands of the developer because these contracts end up being easements on ones land rather than a straight land lease agreement. Even ones own future development is now hampered. Now that I am living with neighbours turbines (24 within 5 km of my farm and home) the noise is disruptive and to those that find that there is no noise when they visit during the day, are not understanding that disruptions usually occurs at night when wind shears are the greatest. People in Bruce, Norfolk, England, Ohio, New York, Japan, and European countries as well have had to abandon their homes and if they are lucky the wind developer buys them out by imposing non disclosure, hence the reason why this is not generally known. Want to know more about wind development go towww.windconcernsontario.org and read the real story behind the Industrialization of our rural areas.

Wind Power Won't Cool Down the Planet  
 
Often enough it leads to higher carbon emissions. 
 
By ROBERT BRYCE  
 
The wind industry has achieved remarkable growth largely due to the claim that it will provide major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. There's just one problem: It's not true. A slew of recent studies show that wind-generated electricity likely won't result in any reduction in carbon emissions—or that they'll be so small as to be almost meaningless. 
 
 
 
This issue is especially important now that states are mandating that utilities produce arbitrary amounts of their electricity from renewable sources. By 2020, for example, California will require utilities to obtain 33% of their electricity from renewables. About 30 states, including Connecticut, Minnesota and Hawaii, are requiring major increases in the production of renewable electricity over the coming years.  
 
 
 
Wind—not solar or geothermal sources—must provide most of this electricity. It's the only renewable source that can rapidly scale up to meet the requirements of the mandates. This means billions more in taxpayer subsidies for the wind industry and higher electricity costs for consumers.  
 
 
 
None of it will lead to major cuts in carbon emissions, for two reasons. First, wind blows only intermittently and variably. Second, wind-generated electricity largely displaces power produced by natural gas-fired generators, rather than that from plants burning more carbon-intensive coal. 
 
 
 
Because wind blows intermittently, electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all the time to make sure the lights don't go dark, or continually ramp up and down the output from conventional coal- or gas-fired generators (called "cycling"). But coal-fired and gas-fired generators are designed to run continuously, and if they don't, fuel consumption and emissions generally increase. A car analogy helps explain: An automobile that operates at a constant speed—say, 55 miles per hour—will have better fuel efficiency, and emit less pollution per mile traveled, than one that is stuck in stop-and-go traffic.  
 
 
 
Recent research strongly suggests how this problem defeats the alleged carbon-reducing virtues of wind power. In April, Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm, looked at power plant records in Colorado and Texas. (It was commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States.) Bentek concluded that despite huge investments, wind-generated electricity "has had minimal, if any, impact on carbon dioxide" emissions.  
 
 
 
Bentek found that thanks to the cycling of Colorado's coal-fired plants in 2009, at least 94,000 more pounds of carbon dioxide were generated because of the repeated cycling. In Texas, Bentek estimated that the cycling of power plants due to increased use of wind energy resulted in a slight savings of carbon dioxide (about 600 tons) in 2008 and a slight increase (of about 1,000 tons) in 2009. 
 
 
 
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has estimated the potential savings from a nationwide 25% renewable electricity standard, a goal included in the Waxman-Markey energy bill that narrowly passed the House last year. Best-case scenario: about 306 million tons less CO2 by 2030. Given that the agency expects annual U.S. carbon emissions to be about 6.2 billion tons in 2030, that expected reduction will only equal about 4.9% of emissions nationwide. That's not much when you consider that the Obama administration wants to cut CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. 
 
 
 
Earlier this year, another arm of the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, released a report whose conclusions were remarkably similar to those of the EIA. This report focused on integrating wind energy into the electric grid in the Eastern U.S., which has about two-thirds of the country's electric load. If wind energy were to meet 20% of electric needs in this region by 2024, according to the report, the likely reduction in carbon emissions would be less than 200 million tons per year. All the scenarios it considered will cost at least $140 billion to implement. And the issue of cycling conventional power plants is only mentioned in passing. 
 
 
 
Coal emits about twice as much CO2 during combustion as natural gas. But wind generation mostly displaces natural gas, because natural gas-fired generators are often the most costly form of conventional electricity production. Yet if regulators are truly concerned about reducing carbon emissions and air pollution, they should be encouraging gas-fired generation at the expense of coal. And they should be doing so because U.S. natural gas resources are now likely large enough to meet all of America's natural gas needs for a century. 
 
 
 
Meanwhile, the wind industry is pocketing subsidies that dwarf those garnered by the oil and gas sector. The federal government provides a production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by wind. That amounts to $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. In 2008, however, the EIA reported subsidies to oil and gas totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. Wind subsidies are more than 200 times as great as those given to oil and gas on the basis of per-unit-of-energy produced. 
 
 
 
Perhaps it comes down to what Kevin Forbes, the director of the Center for the Study of Energy and Environmental Stewardship at Catholic University, told me: "Wind energy gives people a nice warm fuzzy feeling that we're taking action on climate change." Yet when it comes to CO2 emissions, "the reality is that it's not doing much of anything." 
 
 
 
Mr. Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, recently published his fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" (PublicAffairs).  
 
 
 
 
 

Colette,  
 
I work for myself and have no association with the wind energy.  
 
Thanks for the Robert Bryce post, he seems to be very informed on the sustainable energy front.  
 
However, he seems to unfairly comparing (in some of his other articles) the ingenuity, and efficiency of the century old Oil and Gas industry (to the point of sounding like an advocate), to the fairly new industries of Wind and Solar. With every energy source there will be a trade-off. To only state the down-side of one solution without acknowledging the down-side of the other is not a fair argument. Furthermore, we won't be fully aware of the Wind energies possibilities until it reaches it's full potential in efficiency and safety. Like I said above, to write it off now seems a bit premature.  
 
Again, the question remains, if we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, how do we replace them?  
 
If not wind then what?  
 
Solar?  
Nuclear?  
 
Or, do we just keep digging farther and farther into the earth, to find more and more remote sources of fossil fuels and burning through them?

This is a fair argument I think. It's important to debate the pros and cons of wind energy, particularly since our society is apt to throw caution to the wind as it were and ruin precious resources before we even understand what we are doing. We hold technology in high regard but often we don't look to see what monsters we are creating. With regard to wind turbines, proper research and planning is in order and farmers should be duly aware of the inherent risk involved.  
 
That being said, Robert Bryce is a shill for the oil industry and has been quoted that global warming is a hoax. He makes some valid points but just be aware where he is coming from.

Robert Bryce is not a shill for the oil industry, he is an Energy journalist assessing whether renewables will do the job needed for a mordern society. Evidence from Denmark, Germany and Spain all show that Wind and other renewables do not meet the requirements. As for Matthew indicating if not wind and solar than what, clearly shows how he is not in tuned with the energy industry. The world has 400 years of coal reserves which could be used judicially and cleanly if C02 was not considered a pollutant rather than a gas element needed for plant growth. Matthew you talk about trade offs, therefore is right to trade off people's live, prime agricultural land, environmental devastation for the sake of a pittance of energy all in the name of saving the world from global warming (which it can't do as well) It's been noted that between 2000-2009, a net amount of 65.1 gigawatts (GW) of wind power was installed in Europe while fuel oil, coal and nuclear capacity decreased by 13 GW, 12 GW, and 7.2 GW respectively”. 
 
 
 
These are very odd figures coming from the wind industry about capacity and to suggest that the decrease in other forms of generation is the result of the increase in wind generation is misleading at best and contradicts the real evidence found under the US DOE's Energy Information Agency which indicates in their documenthttp://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm 
 
that in the EU-27 countries, there was an increase of thermal capacity (coal and natural gas aren't separated) of almost 29 GW from 2000-2007. Thermal generation increased from 1,520,965 GWh to 1,748,766 GWh. Coal consumption increased from 904,856,000 short tons to 920,230,000 short tons (consumption of other fossil fuels also increased, but only coal is used almost wholly for electricity). Non-hydro renewable capacity (presumably mostly wind) increased from 23.527 GW to 86.759 GW and generation from 21,143 GWh to 99,152 Gwh. This however only represented a 13% capacity factor (potential level of electrical generation that can be provided to the grid) in 2007 which by the way, was only up from 10% in 2000). Understand that wind represents only 1% worldwide of the total while fossil fuels represent 85% of our electrical generation. It is also important to understand that capacity factor is not an indication of the value that wind energy is providing the grid. The true capacity value of wind is generally less than 10% of it's nameplate capacity and often 0% or slightly above simply because, at the time of peak electricity demand, wind isn't blowing to allow generation. (Gleen R. Schleede,Electric Industry Terms Important in Understanding Two Critically Important Limitations of Electricity from Wind Energy). 
 
 
 
To continue with the EU-27, total electricity consumption increased from 2,633,494 GWh to 2,950,297 GWh, or 316,803 GWh, far outstripping wind's increased production of 78,009 GWh, therefore to suggest that renewables can replace coal with wind is ludicrous and unfounded. Real world data from Europe has shown that one kWh of wind does not directly replace one kWh of coal mainly for the reasons noted above. 
 
 
 
As well, from 2000 to 2007 per capita C02 emissions in the EU-27 countries, increased from 8.5 to 8.7 metric tons. A difference of 0.2 metric tonnes over 7 years at what cost to the electrical consumer? Europe, especially Denmark are known to have the highest electricity rates in the world. Let's keep in mind that electricity is a master resource needed for almost everything we use to maintain our lives as we know it. 
 
Note also that the decreases in other forms of energy noted above is more likely due to the fact that energy demands were reduced because of heavy industry shut down resulting from the economic fall out in 2008 and 2009. We are in energy surplus right now.  
 
 
 
Indicating that wind generation is outpacing installation rates of other forms of generation tells us nothing about whether wind is a viable solution to our energy problems. It only indicates that the wind industry has been very clever promoters in pushing the right buttons that many people want to hear . Additionally, most people are not critical thinkers and do not see past the fact that the Wind industry is all about money. Without large gov't subsidies, the industry would not exist. As taxpayers funding this kind of folly for the next 20 years, what is our price to being bought? Is our quality of life for sale when by erecting these behemoths production agriculture will be substantially reduced, natural habitats will be desecrated, and the health and financial welfare of neighbours will be adversely affected? Matthew seems to think this is warranted for the sake of the perceived benefits wind energy can offer. I personally would like to see the proof first before moving full steam ahead. So far, after 4 years of reviewing the wind industry claims I have yet to find independent real-world data that supports these kinds of technical claims. If citizens want to see what an independent scientist has concluded, please see http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/energy-presentationkey-presentation. 
 
 
 

Thanks for the support Emily and having the courage to challenge the convention. People like Matthew and Melissa above do not seem to want to accept that it would be better to say NO to this kind of development. As a resident living in among these giant fans on a stick, all I can say is when it comes time for turbines coming to your neighbourhood, as hard as you can Say NO!!! that means letting your council and this McGuinty gov't know you do not want to see turbines anywhere in this province.

"The world has 400 years of coal reserves which could be used judicially and cleanly if C02 was not considered a pollutant rather than a gas element needed for plant growth."  
 
So, I just want to be clear here, are you saying that the green house effect and climate change do not exist? That the increases in CO2 levels should be perceived as beneficial to the environment?

May I ask why you are asking? Are you looking to paint me a denier? I am for sound scientific solution and scientific methodology. The solutions we choose to address a science based issue such as global warming/climate change, GHG emissions or whatever one calls it today must be scientifically sound. Wind is a dismal failure in it's attempts to address C02 emissions and to continue it's support for the idea that we must do something to address global warming issues is throwing money away.

I'm not trying to paint you as anything. I'm simply trying to understand your argument.  
 
Having diverse energy sources to feed into our energy grid means that we can learn from the process and development of each source. We can then choose that best energy source to fit our needs based on cost, benefit and location. This of course assumes that we have adequate data to back up our choices. In a nutshell, I’m advocating for keeping the energy grid diverse so that we don't rely too much on one primary source, so we can use empirical evidence to build a smarter grid in the future.  
 
Perhaps wind and solar needs a little more momentum and support before we really know what the benefits are. (I’m pretty sure that the Oil and Gas industry is doing just fine advocating for themselves.) 
 
But, it sounds to me like some people are already willing to throw in the towel on wind energy now!  
 
If part of the argument for abandoning wind energy is the belief that GHG emissions are not really a problem, or worse a hoax, then it needs to be highlighted and key part of that argument.  

Why do I call Robert Bryce a shill? While he makes some very good and valid points about wind energy, he is a senior fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute, which is funded by oil companies like Exxon Mobil and other industry polluters like Koch. So all I'm saying is you have to look to the source and keep it in perspective. Bryce claims to be honest and independent, but in the end, he bashes renewable energy more often than not. That is suspect to me.

He shows how renewables are a simple waste of time becauuse they are not worth the expense and cannot live up to the claims the industry makes regarding, C02 emissions, abundant clean energy, green jobs etc. Do you have the reference which indicates how the MI is funded by big oil? Did you also realize who develops many of these Industrial Wind projects? Do the names Enbridge, Epcor, Suncor, Acciona ring a bell? Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that things like Industrial Wind Energy is not an answer to our energy needs. I've spoken with Robert on the phone and he is very concerned about the direction we are taking towards renewables because other countries like Denmark have shown that despite 20% of the nameplate capacity dedicated towards wind, this on average is providing only 9.7% of that country's electrical needs at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Robert has been able to show that things like wind are receiving 200 times the subsidies that oil and gas or nuclear ever received. In these economic times, is this money well spent when wind can't even make a dent in the C02 issue nor provide us with a reliable efficient source of electrical generation? Your disconnect to the realities of wind is disheartening. I'm telling you from experience that people, environment and economies are being hurt by wind energy yet you and Matthew hold on to your myopic views. Ontario Wind ending in Dec/09 produced 80% of its capacity only 3% of the time with many times producing less than 5% for periods over 24 hours. 635  
 
wind generators in Ontario last year produced, 2.3 TWh of electricity. Pickering produced 31 TWh; that is the equivalent of 84000 unreliable, fickle, inefficient wind turbines which would need to cover a land mass of  
 
Bruce, Grey and Huron counties using the present Enbridge farm in Bruce county which covers 168 square km with 110 turbines. Is this the kind of Ontario you want to live in? Turbines and other green energy iniatives are only great visuals that trick us into believing something positive is being done. But this also leads to a reluctance to think critically, thus causing the benefits of wind to become widely and irresponsibly overstated. Ontario's gov't has created a gold rush with the microFit and FIT programs, rather than doing a proper cost benefit analysis. It never ceases to amaze me how so many continue to overlook the other side of Industrial wind development which has caused residents to abandon their homes, cannot prove that it can lower harmful emissions, reduce the mining and burning of coal, lower or stabilize electricity rates, wean us from foreign oil, nor provide a timely and reliable product needed in a modern society. Instead we let ourselves to be mislead by the renewable industry (especially wind) into thinking that the noise is no louder than a refrigerator, or that erecting IWT's will provide a new green economy and jobs. These turbines will do nothing other than provide a superficial feel good gesture, political move for the McGuinty gov't to appear environmentally conscious and an opportunity for developers to make a lot of money off the taxpayer's back. Renewables, especially Industrial Wind, are not proven, effective nor efficient. The industry's statements, which have induced these subsidies, constitute fraud in my opinion, and until proof of benefit can be quantified and verified (measured), and people can live safely within project areas, we need to stop rather provide more momentum as suggested by Matthew. continue on as

As a power plant operating engineer I worked in three different continents over forty two years on almost every kind of electrical power generation plant there is from Nuclear to coal to even wind and solar and I can assure readers that we have only one choice if we want reliable and affordable clean electricity and that choice is Nuclear. 
to the people who think Nuclear power is dangerous think again and get educated because you do not understand this subject. 
If fact anyone who thinks wind or solar power can make a significant contribution to your grid simply does not understand electrical generation period . 
The wind does not blow all the time or even at the right time and the sun does not shine all the time -it's really that simple. 
If it cannot produce power 24/7 it cannot become part of the grid or displace fossil fueled stations that don't care if the wind doe not blow or sun does not shine. It is simply an expensive unreliable nuisance to the grid operators and yes as the author suggests it is a fully fledged scam.

Thank you ruffie for coming forward and presenting in a clear and simple way the folly that is renewable energy, all coming from someone who knows the energy industry.

Colette,  
I am not "myopic" or "disconnected from the realities of wind" as you say. And I'm not dismissing all of what you and Mr. Bryce are saying. I am simply asking questions and looking for real answers and one must always question a source before accepting its conclusion. Maybe you should stop labeling people. I accept a lot of what you are saying and I think this is an important conversation to have so why make it personal? Criticizing me is not going to get the energy problem solved. Facts - not personal attacks - are what counts.

O.K. Melissa tell me what questions are you asking or better still what info. I have made great effort to provide on this site, which indicates to you that you have not found the "real answers". You suggest that I am making it personal, tell me how else could it possibly be when I am the one who is living with turbines in my backyard, thumping,swooshing and incessantly turning 24/7. Despite the fact that I am the one with the first hand experience of living with turbines and have investigated for 4years the issues of noise, visited residents forced out of their homes, participated in consultations on the inadequate noise guidelines for my province, presented in delegation my findings all in the end to be discounted, ridiculed and shoved aside because of people like you who cling to an ideology surrounding the potential of green energy and insist that despite all of the drawbacks, pitfalls and inadequacies, we must move forward for the supposed betterment of the whole. Despite the fact that I have been able to show the folly and scam that surrounds green energy like IWT's, you feel the need to acuse me of making it personal. This is what is called cognitive dissonance and disconnect coming from someone who will problably never have to live with this kind of development. Believe me your perspective completely changes when its your health, property values, & environment at risk and I am personally tired of being treated as expendable collateral all for the sake of fickle, unrealiable, expensive renewable energy like Industrial Wind turbines. 
 
 
 
I predict this will be my area in two years:  
 
 
 
"Now, as wind turbines are sprouting on Maine’s mountains accompanied by heavy machinery, roads, transmission lines, substations, wells and concrete plants, that certainty is yielding to doubt for some. “I think people didn’t have a good appreciation of this, including us, for what the whole thing entails,” said Maine Audubon’s Jody Jones, a biologist who served on the task force. “This process was another step to better environmental policy, but there were clearly flaws.” 
 
 
 
http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Statewide/Some-on-task-force-question-goals-they-set,150961

As you do not know me or what my beliefs really are, I find it strange that you so easily group me into some category of people "who cling to an ideology" about green energy. I have no ideology. I'm about what works. Coal, so far, has a very bad track record and nuclear is less appealing. I don't think there is a good solution to our energy problems, yet. Clearly wind energy, from your own example, has a long way to go. 
 
I'm truly sorry, Colette, to hear about your situation. That must be terrible. I wish you all the best. And thanks for voicing your opinion, it's an important one.

Melissa - when you say coal has a very bad track record and nuclear is less appealing can you be more specific as to why you would say that. I'll bet you have never been inside a power plant of any kind or have any idea how they work. I'll bet your opinions are formed by reading newspaper articles, TV news cast etc by writers and announcers who have no more expertise on the subject and are more interested in selling the news than reporting scientific facts. I'm not picking on you as you are just like at least 90% of the general public. The other 10% are skeptics and ask questions and don't like what they get as answers. 
I, on the other hand have spent all my 42 working years operating power stations and have no problems with coal or Nuclear but maybe that's because I understand how they work etc. 
You and others would do well to remember that Alternative Energy is an Alternative to Energy. 

It's not your sympathy or apologies I need Melissa; it's your committment to understand and hopefully change your views on wind energy. Like "Ruffie" has clearly identified for you; you are simply uninformed and have based your opinion on gleening info. from ill informed sources more interested in hype than truth. Like yourself, I too was always leerie about nuclear and as an asthmatic, coal I thought, was just a demon until I forced myself to understand our energy system and how we've all become very reliant on the idea that electricity is there at the flip of a switch. Like Ruffie says, coal and nuclear have received unwarranted denegration. These are the work horses that have provided us with the quality of life we have come to expect in a modern society. If you cling to the idea that renewables are only a part of the solution like Matthew seems to above, and only require proper siting for them to work, you do not understand that without things like coal or natural gas generation, wind cannot exist on on the grid. Without quick responsive fossil fuel generation, wind would create havoc to our electrical system which must be kept in balance 24/7. Because these must sit in spinning reserve in the background more C02 is actually created. You accuse me of not knowing your beliefs instead of providing the info. that can counter my points about wind energy, which suggests that you are the one taking things personally here. Your beliefs that things like wind is clean energy and requires our support is nothing but a dirty lie and must be challenged or else we all suffer in the future.

Here's a good article about wind energy in the North West USA. It talks about how they are learning from European projects to figure out best practices:  
 
http://sustainablebusinessoregon.com/articles/2010/08/northwest_looks_to_europe_for_ideas_on_wind.html 
 
Also, if anyone cares to read it, there was an exhaustive Study done by Charles River Associates that goes into details about the pros and cons of Wind Energy.  
 
Do a search on "SPP WITF Wind Integration Study" 
 
There seems to be some pretty educated people on the topic of Wind Energy that still think it's a viable alternative.  

Did you not read my earlier posts?? Denmark despite having wind @ 20% of their nameplate capacity, is only providing on average 5% of their electrical needs. You have got to start understanding the difference between nameplate capacity and was is actually being produced for the grid. These are not the same. When Denmark has too much wind they have to dump to Norway and Finland at a cheaper price, hence the Danish public is subsidizing wind energy to their neighbours. Denmarks rates for electricity are the highest in the world. When Denmark requires energy, they have to call upon Finland and Norway which are largely Nuclear. As I showed you above despite the large penetration of wind, the EU-27 nations actually increased their use of coal from 2000-2007. In a report from the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaft sforschung, describing the economic impact of renewable energy: the German experience, in their executive summary it is stated "We argue that German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to 
 
harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction 
 
of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary,the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security. 
 
They also state "Installed capacity is not the same as production or contribution, however, and by 2008 the estimated share of wind power in Germany’s electricity production was 6.3%, followed by biomass-based electricity generation (3.6%) and water power(3.1%). The amount of electricity produced through solar photovoltaics was a negligible 
 
0.6% despite being the most subsidized renewable energy, with a net cost of about 8.4 Bn € (US $12.4 Bn) for 2008. There are lots of educated people out there Matthew, the question is whether you are willing to educate yourself to the possibility that renewables just don't cut it. Because of your dogged beliefs that wind needs to form a part of the energy mix, because it's only a matter of getting over the technical issues, you are shoving these monsters onto people like me living in rural areas. You are essentially saying that my health, my property values and safety (this things do throw blades and ice and fall over) are worth the sacrifice for an energy source that will not reduce the need for fossil-fuels, will not provide long term green jobs, provide dispatchable energy needed for a modern society.

Unfortunately Colette, as hard as my be, I am actually reading your posts. 
 
But, I'm not just taking your word for it, I'm investigating what others are saying and writing as well. Many of whom are paid professionals in the industry and many of whom are contradicting what you are saying. 
 
Furthermore, the fact that you see the wind energy in general as personal attack on "your health" and "your property values" and "your safety" makes me wonder if "your opinions" don't have a bias.  
 
You said: "an energy source that will not reduce the need for fossil-fuels, will not provide long term green jobs, provide dispatchable energy needed for a modern society." - I'm sorry, but I think the jury is still out on this one ...  

Of course paid industry professionals like those that were paid by Enron are always more credible than a person who is actually living with the problems of wind turbines. People like myself just love the idea of having to abandon their homes and get nothing for it because of wind turbines as their neighbours. The whole idea behind my tactics is to of course ensure this will happen by disseminating what you call biased information. When money is at stake, and big money at that with wind developers, information is always biased. Just remember that when your electricity rates go up 25% for the next few years,every year, just pay it with the satisfaction in knowing you are subsidizing less than scrupulous people who don't have to live with the consequences of their actions and will never have to live near this kind of industrialization yet make big money that is often going overseas to pay for offshore turbines and parts.

 
 
 
 
You might also find this of interest http://www.windaction.org/faqs/28898. It's talks about the regret farmers are feeling with respect to wind development on their land.  
 
 
 
Thank you again Emily for allowing this conversation and I encourage you to not only understand the visual impact that turbines have on our landscape but the impact this will have on our economy. With the ease these projects are going up despite local opposition, I fear who will have control over agricultural land in the futurw. Haven't we given up enough control to the large intensive agriculture industry that we must also give a piece of the pie to renewable developers.  
 
 
 

 
Wind turbines are for the inexperienced naive and gullible.

Your reference to the French documentary which presents the issues surrounding Nuclear waste is suggesting in this debate that because of nuclear waste, we therefore must forge on with wind turbines and solar panels. This line of thinking is unfortunately based on a very large assumption that these renewables can replace nuclear generation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We as taxpayers are providing the hefty subsidies to maintain renewables penetration on the grid. Without these the industry would no exist. Since wind cannot truly recover any C02, provide only a pittance of energy, and in turn has detrimental effects on the environment, why go on??

Glad to hear Emily, Glad to hear!

I believe that big wind is making this a choice between industrial wind farms and the continuation of fossil fuel use and/or nuclear, when the choice is really between big and centralized and small and localized. Here in my town in Maine we have a wind ordinance that permits commercial turbines up to 80 feet and residential up to 60 feet. Compare that to the industrial wind farms, consisting of 40 turbines of more than 400 feet in height. And, all of that power is shipped out of state, since Maine is a net energy exporter. We need to begin looking to create regional power authorities to supply power to our local communities and also to permit and encourage farmers and homeowners to produce power for their own use. Colleges and other institutions can also utilize a few turbines, and the coast guard down here recently put in a turbine. I am all for renewable power that supports local communities rather than disrupting those communities with inappropriately sized and sited industrial facilities.

Thanks for that Lynne, I agree. Maybe the best use of wind energy is small scale. I like the idea of individuals or small businesses becoming contributors to the energy grid. Not only could a small farm, home owner or business, where appropriate, become an energy contributor, but it also helps raise awareness of energy use/waste when more individuals become part of the solution. Solar energy could work well this way too. Like all technologies, the more we produce the more efficient and affordable they become. I could imagine a time when solar panels and small scale wind mills become very feasible energy solutions for the average home owner.

Even small scale generation is very expensive and this is generally exclusive to the rich who want to feel environmentally conscious.(Systems generally cost on average $20,000 or much more with solar) As for small turbines and solar panels to become feasible energy solutions, you are playing into another scam. These day one only has to turn around and another fly by-night company is willing to sell you a set of solar panels and home grown wind turbine for your backyard. I have spoken to several people with their own wind turbine and experience the same problems as industrial scale, wind and sun are not always there therefore require backup generation. My neighbours were on their 2 natural gas generator contemplating their 3 and 2 set of marine batteries when they realized this is costing way too much for the sake of being "green". They also found it difficult to go away for any length of time as they had to make sure generation was there to keep their pipes from freezing,and their refrigerator from shutting down because the wind failed to generate adequate electricity for their basic amenities. They are not hooked to the grid. Wind and solar are only rated as 25% efficient. How does one conduct day to day activities on this kind efficiency? Solar companies for example are claiming 6 years return on one's investment and that is based on their calculations of 6 hours of sunlight per day. In NA, one should only rely on 2.5 hours per day. I understand how many people get excited about the idea of being able to contribute to the environment, but unfortunately the laws of physics and straight grade 6 math will show you that even small scale energy is a waste of time. Until they can improve their efficiencies, you would be better to invest into a ground source heating system and an on-the-go water heater.

I apologize for some editing errors above. My neighbours with the small scale turbine are "now" on the grid. BTW despite this obvious support for renewables, they also fought against the industrial wind development in our area and are now also facing the same dilema of 24 IWT's within 5 km of their home. Please understand that your support of even the small scale stuff, ends up in the end supporting the idea of wind and solar as a whole, which in turn allows industrial development to continue.

Thank you for your comments Colette. However, I must disagree on the comments about solar, since I have at least 7 friends and acquaintances in Maine who produce all of their power from solar and, in fact, sell power back to the grid. I admit I do not know the potential with wind, but I know that some of the small farms in this area are using small wind turbines to produce part of the their power needs. I think education is important, but I also think free choice is important. In some locations, it could work, in others it won't. If, by ground sources of heat you mean geothermal, I also have a few friends who installed that, and it is great for heat, but does not produce electricity, as you probably know. It was also quite expensive to install. 
There is no one answer. I represent many community groups in Maine that are fighting industrial wind, and will continue fighting these industrial facilities. But, again, I believe decentralization is the key to providing a clean and affordable mix of energy to communities.

If your friends are selling back to the grid, this is most likely at a subsidized rate. Again who do you think is providing this subsidy? How does paying for a source of generated electricity @ 80cents/KWh (here in Ontario) and charging only 5 to 7 cent/KWh for that same electricity make sense for any length of time? It's coming from your's and my pocket no matter how you slice it. As for geothermal yes it's not meant for electrical generation but your post and Matthew post seems to be in general about being environmentally conscious and using judiscially our energy sources. Geothermal has a turnaround of 10 years (in my area) just on heating and cooling and actually reduces the amount of fossil fuel used if one heats with natural gas and therefore the C02 this emits. The price for it is much less than setting up ones own turbine or solar panel.

This was an interest read and comes from a pro-renewable site. "Green Dream, meets Reality"  
 
 
 
The point is: Fully 84 percent of the energy we consume comes from petroleum, natural gas and coal. Even with the government heavily subsidizing and promoting green energy with some $80 billion in tax credits and subsidies in the 2009 stimulus bill alone, the Energy Information Administration projects that the United States will still likely get three-fourths of its energy from fossil fuels 25 years from now.  
 
 
 
The "green dream" needs to face this reality.  
 
 
 
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles/generation/climate-change/mcclatchy-tribune-regional-news/green-dream-meet-reality/index.shtml

to save fossil fuel I have been using a fuel treatment that was developed by NASA and received a Nobel Prize for the science. Now getting a 20% increase in MPG 
Fuel Efficiency