[GallopingGhost]

Bottomline, wind energy is one of the most inefficent, ineffective forms of energy and hugely destructive. Kennedy's effort is excellent. The wind companies are being bolstered by plain stupid energy policy.

Inefficient and ineffective I understand, but destructive? How so?

[LisaS]

It all plays into the same argument against wind. My town (in NH) is being threatened by a wind plant that will stretch across 2 miles of ridgeline. We are talking about a power plant with a footprint of 70 acres that, at best, will produce the equivalent of 150,000 barrels of oil per year. The US consumes 20 billion barrels per day! There is simply not enough benefit from wind to justify this impact.

[aardvark-pitcher]

Ridgelines up and down the east coast are being threatened by taxpayer subsidized wind projects. These projects are not pursued out of environmental goodness by environmentalists, or for clean energy by power companies, or to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Each of these possible benefits are convincingly refuted by straight facts (no cars with windmill are planned that I know of). Rather these projects are of financial investment companies taking advantage of tax benefits. And in 5 years when the capital expenses are written off, they will sell the business or shut it down, possibly leaving once inefficient now unused wind towers to rust. The decapitated mountain tops will remain a testimate to knee-jerk "clean energy" policies that have no basis in market viability on their own.