Michigan Land Use Institute

Clean Energy / News & Views / Plugged In: The Great Wind Hoax

Plugged In: The Great Wind Hoax

Windbaggers' latest rhetorical leap

Power to Change | August 23, 2012 | By Jim Dulzo

Plugged In

Plugged In is the energy-related blog of Jim Dulzo, MLUI's senior energy policy specialist. You can harass him at jimdulzo@mlui.org.


Recent Posts

Rep. Nesbitt: Save, Don’t Sink, MI's Clean Energy Progress!

Clean Energy | April 30, 2015 | By Jim Dulzo

MLUI just wrote to state Rep. Aric Nesbitt and the House Committee on Energy Policy, urging them to expand, not eliminate, Michigan’s fabulously successful renewable energy and energy optimization standards. Could you read our letter and then email your own note to Rep Nesbitt’s committee in the next few days? ...

Guest View: Shared Heat Can Warm MI’s Energy Policy

Clean Energy | April 7, 2015 | By Jamie Scripps

Power plants waste a lot of energy—most of it as heat fleeing up their smokestacks. But what if the plants captured that wasted heat and put it to good use—producing more electricity, warming nearby buildings, or assisting industrial processes?...

Time for Lansing to Catch, Not Ignore, the New-Tech Energy Wave

Clean Energy | March 26, 2015 | By Skip Pruss, of 5 Lakes Energy, and Jim Dulzo

We’ll always need a rock-solid, unshakably constant supply of power. But today there are other ways to do that besides merely burning more fossil fuel.
New distributed energy technologies, new grid control systems, and new demand-side energy services should be part of what has been an under-informed, truncated conversation about meeting Michigan’s future electricity needs....


Did you know that wind power is a big hoax?

I’d heard dark rumors, but they were finally confirmed when someone said so, with great certainty, at a recent Traverse City Light & Power meeting. Turns out it was the same guy who threw lots of crazed charges at MLUI during the great 2010 TCL&P biomass blowout.

Crazy or not, his harangue marks the latest rhetorical leap for the windbagger community as they try to drive those big ol’ turbines out of Michigan and into the sea—although, mind you, certainly not into the Great Lakes.

It all started decades ago, when some people said wind couldn’t work because it’s too darn expensive. Coal power was maybe three cents a kilowatt-hour; wind power was at least 10 times that.

But wind power prices fell dramatically, so then came brickbats over birds and bats—thanks to the dreadfully designed, bird bass-o-matic known as the Altamont Pass wind farm. About the same time, flicker fright started up, too. 

So, when it became clear that cats were killing far more birds than properly sited wind farms ever could, and that flicker is a solvable trigonometry problem, the ‘baggers decided to bring up da noise.

That gradually escalated into dire warnings about ultra-low frequency turbine sounds ... you know, the ones so low-pitched you can’t hear ’em? Turns out, they make people sick! And if they don’t, then you still gotta watch out for what you can hear when the breeze is just right. That whooshing sound is very annoying, they insisted.  Annoyance is stressful. Stress harms your health. So, windpower harms your health. QED, baby!

Add recent accusations that turbines destroy property values and tourism and you gotta ask: Why would a just God ever allow those machines onto our good Earth?

The hoax thang popped up last week on our website, in response to my recent, twin articles about successful windpower development in Gratiot County. Those unabashedly positive stories quickly drew repeated attacks from folks like Kevon Martis, of IICCUSA, the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition USA.

Kevon didn’t say “hoax,” but he did say “faith-based energy masquerading as a meaningful energy source.” Because wind is intermittent, he argues, it’s useless for cutting the use of coal plants, which must always be left on, ready to fill in when the wind dies. He also trashed turbine tax incentives and said it’s cheaper to just switch to all natural gas generation, which has half of coal’s greenhouse gas emissions.

This from a guy whose website aggressively trumpets the names of people in a community who have signed pro-wind petitions or wind royalty leases, clucks about “at least one confirmed incident” of an illegal alien working on turbine construction, and cites a 2009 study claiming that developing clean energy destroys, rather than creates, jobs.

That last whopper’s from a study by Gabriel Alvarez of Spain’s King Carlos University. No mention, though, that the Spanish government, the U.S. government, Spain’s own jobs data, and The Wall Street Journal slammed the report’s data, methodology, cherry picking, lack of transparency—and conclusion. Now there’s a hoax!

No mention, either that the study’s author is a climate-change denier. He’s been funded by Exxon-Mobil and The Heartland Institute—the fine organization that put up a billboard comparing people who believe in global warming to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

In fact, there are a lot of parallels between climate deniers and windbaggers. Both say “hoax.” Both bring up new objections whenever old ones crumble before the facts. Both happily take advantage of how complicated their bête noirs are—filled with tons of interrelated, moving parts. Say something critical and half true about one little part, and then use it to cast doubt on the whole shebang.

I stopped debating climate deniers about a year ago. They always have another goal post to move and are stubbornly indifferent to what the best science clearly says.

It’s getting like that with windbaggers. Check their response to my two articles and you’ll see. After I answered most of Kevon’s and other writers’ initial claims, new ones showed up from all of ’em.

It’s quite a list: utilities lumped with fossil fuel extractors; dissing wind’s soaring efficiency; blaming wind, whose cost is plummeting, for Europe’s longtime high electricity prices; claiming wind power costs twice what DTE Energy actually pays; dissing wind tax incentives, enacted perhaps 80 years into oil, gas, and coal’s ongoing tax-break bonanza; ignoring wind tax breaks’ splendid success helping a new American industry scale up and slash costs; double-counting wind’s cost by including the gas generators that power up when wind fades; ignoring that farmers’ turbine income helps them avoid selling land to stay in business; lamenting that turbines drove a McBain family away (without naming them or their address.)

Wind is working better and getting cheaper all the time; it’s emissions-free; correctly done, it does no harm to land or people or wildlife and, in fact, helps protect all three. Renewable energy in the United States is in its infancy—and will be until we have a well integrated, nationally connected, smart grid linking all sorts of power sources.

If folks had used windbagger logic when our Apollo moon-shot program was in its infancy, they would have dissed John Glenn’s historic, 1962 sub-orbital ride. I mean, hey, it didn’t get us all the way to the moon, so what’s the point? And when, years later, Neil Armstrong took his giant leap for mankind, they probably would have called it a hoax. Stranger things have, and are, happening.

Jim Dulzo is the Michigan Land Use Institute’s senior energy policy specialist. You can harass him at jimdulzo@mlui.org. Special thanks to Climate Crock of the Week video producer Peter Sinclair for the term “windbagger,” and to Jo Anne Beemon for a hot tip.


4312 days ago, 4:14pm | by Richard Kooyman | Report Comment

It seems that the initial debating about the pro's and con's of industrial wind develop here at the MLUI website have move into the snarky journalism phase.
But we are still left with the big question of just what will the landscape of Michigan look like in the coming years when the current 300 turbines become 1000 turbines and then double to 2000 and finally to over 3000 if the 25% mandate passes?

If and when we see turbines hulking all along the ridges of western Michigan or crowded throughout the thumb of the state, when we see their blinking red lights at night across the horizon, when they become as common as telephone poles will we still call them mesmerizing or elegant?
What will people think when they finally realize 50-100-500ft towers cluster in their county, mining the free wind, doesn't reduce their electric bills or that the electricity being generated in their backyard probably isn't even going to power their homes? Or that the plethora of jobs promised by the industry doesn't quite measure up to expectations?

I realize that all these question are easily swept under the rug with the threat that our continued dependance on fossil fuels impose. I'll be the first to admit that us " windbaggers" have our fair share of wacko conspiracy theorists, misinformed worriers, and people who have a hard time distinguishing fact from fiction. But if the history of capitalistic solutions to social problems has shown us anything ( thank you Howard Zinn) it's that the promises the wind industry are giving us probably aren't half as grand or scientific as the investor driven developers say. We need to all remember that coal is something we can't depend on much longer but lets also remember that wind farms aren't in the business of bringing you clean, free energy.

4312 days ago, 7:03pm | by Julie Hay | Report Comment

I've been waiting for some snarky journalism to highlight the misinformation and fear mongering surrounding the wind energy debate! Thank you, Mr. Dulzo! Snark on!

4312 days ago, 9:51pm | by Stephen Wentworth | Report Comment

Please do your research on the viability of wind and its inability to reduce carbon emissions. I am not sure why you don't study the issue more carefully. I thought journalist writers are supposed to research issues before making rants about this issue.

4311 days ago, 8:02am | by Peter Sinclair | Report Comment

Windbaggers belong to the "rape can't make you pregnant" school of tea party science.
To say that wind power does not reduce carbon emission is ridiculous and ignorant at best, and at worst, more of the paid lies and disinformation we've learned to expect from the anti-science squad.

4311 days ago, 2:50pm | by Tom Karas | Report Comment

But there was a doctor who said in a book that women can stop impregnation after rape- so it must be true.
And there was a doctor who said that infra-sound from turbines would drive neighbors all crazy- so it must be true.
And there was a group of guys who said the sky would fall if turbines were installed so it was true to them.
Sometimes Snark is all you got left. I'm with Hay - Snark On!

4309 days ago, 4:33pm | by Force vs. Consent | Report Comment

The old Ad Hominem attack. Brilliant strategy Jim, Tom and Peter. I’m curious, does the MLUI really want to be associated with this type of irrational fanaticism?

Apparently you are unable to formulate any real arguments so instead you resort demeaning someone’s character by using words like crazy and making false associations. Using the phrase wind bagger and associating wind critics with recent ignorant statements about rape are false, offensive and despicable. Wind opposition is far from a group of tea party republicans. We are cross section of society with representatives from all walks of life. My group in particular is evenly split between republicans and democrats. What binds us together is the truth about the hoax that is wind power. (yes it is a hoax)

Let’s go through some of the reasons I say that.
- Wind is expensive there is no denying it. Wind proponents like to point to recent agreements from the Thumb area that put the cost at roughly 6 cents per kwh. What wind supporters fail to point out is that this is still twice the current marginal cost of power. They also fail to point out that this includes all the subsidies but doesn’t include the cost of transmission (10s of billions), the cost of integration and the cost of lost efficiency to existing facilities. When you add in those items wind exceeds 12 cents per kwh. To make matters worse wind produces very low value power because it tends to produce mostly at night and tends not to produce when demand for power is at its highest.
- The wind is not always blowing somewhere. The facts do not support that myth. Please see Appendix f of the following MISO report. https://www.misoenergy.org/Library/Repository/Study/LOLE/2012 LOLE Study Report.pdf
- Wind is noisy and annoying and will be present on every square inch of my property for the rest of my life. Do you really think you have the right to force this type of development on homeowners like me? Should thousands of people like me be forced to sacrifice our homes and quality of life so that some billion dollar developer can rake in 100s of millions in government subsidies. You are wrong. The noise is real and it is annoying. Telling me that I can simply choose not to be annoyed is offensive and false. To use your own analogy, that’s like saying someone can choose not get pregnant after getting raped. How dare you.
- Wind is intermittent, I’m happy to see you are willing to admit that wind cannot replace fossil fuel plants and that you recognize that the fossil plants need to be kept ready to run at a moment’s notices. What I do not understand is how you cannot recognize the high costs associated with this type of operation. This is not double counting this is the reality.
- Wind will reduce GHGs but at a much lower rate than claimed by the wind industry and most of that reduction will come from reduced gas usage not coal. Wind is a very expensive way of reducing GHGs
- Bird kills- The comparison of wind to cats is another one of those wind industry spins on reality. The impact of turbines on small songbirds is small but when was the last time you saw a cat kill an Eagle, or sandhill crane? If you place turbines near eagles, eagles will die. You may be willing to sacrifice a few Eagles for the supposed benefit of the environment but I do not think this heavily subsidized industry should be given a free pass. They should be held accountable just like any other industry.
- The impact of turbines on bats is another reality that cannot be denied. Bats are already under threat from WNS adding turbines to the mix only makes matters worse. Once again this industry should be held accountable just like any other industry.
- Property values – My home is currently situated in a quiet rural area surrounded my fields and woods. The planned development for my area had my home surrounded by 500ft turbines three of which were within 1500ft of my home. Do you really expect anyone to believe that my home’s value will not be impacted by this development? The studies the industry likes to cite have been discredited many times. The NREL study failed to include homes that could never be sold and had less than 10 homes in the 1000 ft. range. In addition the turbine heights were less than 300ft. None of the studies I have seen have the data to support the conclusion that property values will not be impacted by the current development standard preferred by the industry. In any case do you and your industry friends have the right to force me to accept this risk? If you’re so confident that everything will be just fine why not require developers to guarantee property values? Why should I lose the value of my home so that the developer can increase his profits.
- Your claim that wind is in its infancy is just wrong. While we can all agree that we need to upgrade the grid. The 100s of billions of added cost to accommodate wind is simply a poor use of scarce financial resources.
- Jobs – anyone who has studied economics must understand that increasing the cost of power will cost this state jobs not create them. Wind does nothing more than transfer money from the pockets of taxpayers and rate payers into the pockets of utilities, developers and large landowners. There is no net generation of wealth therefore there is no net generation of jobs. In fact we will lose wealth because the cost of manufacturing will go up making us less competitive in world markets.
- The bogeyman of oil subsidies is another case of misinformation. While I would be in favor of ending all subsidies I think we need to be clear about the definition of a subsidy. Wind receives unprecedented subsidies through direct payments to developers. Coal subsidies have for the most part been eliminated. The oil and gas subsidies that the wind industry likes to quote are not really subsidies in the traditional sense. They include things like the Strategic petroleum reserve (SPR), home heating oil assistance, roads and highways and the deductibility of foreign royalty payments. Is anybody really in favor of discontinuing the SPR or home heating oil assistance for the poor? Do we want to stop building roads? Do we think it is fair to end the deductibility of foreign royalty payments so that our oil companies have to pay a double tax?
- Your notion of comparing wind to the Apollo missions is ludicrous. It is one of the most bizarre statements I’ve ever heard. Apollo was a leap forward. Wind is a step backward.
Here’s the truth about a few other wind myths.

- Wind does nothing for our dependence on foreign oil. We generate less than 1% of our electricity from oil.
- Wind will not help Michigan become energy independent. Most of the developers are from other states or foreign countries and 40% of turbines are made overseas.
- Wind does not diversify our energy supply because it is dependent on natural gas to accommodate its intermittency.
- Wind will not allow us to shut down fossil fuel plants because it has no real capacity.

Jim, you stated above that you have answered all of our claims, really? I don’t think so. All I see is someone who has drank a little too much of the wind industry Kool-Aid.

4308 days ago, 9:38am | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Mr. Dulzo:

I think we should cut to the chase and simply schedule a public debate on the issue.

Kevon Martis

4308 days ago, 11:52am | by Jon Boone | Report Comment

"Windbaggers belong to the "rape can't make you pregnant" school of tea party science.

"To say that wind power does not reduce carbon emission is ridiculous and ignorant at best, and at worst, more of the paid lies and disinformation we've learned to expect from the anti-science squad."--Peter Sinclair

As someone who maintains that wind, soup to nuts, does not reduce fossil fuel consumption and its consequent emissions, and who also has never received a dime from anyone for my work, I think the Peter Sinclairs of the world should stop pretending to know what they don't while making bizarre comparisons based upon goofy news bites.

Since any grid must balance supply and demand perfectly, wind will indeed displace, basically 1 to 1, conventional fuel as it wends its way onto the system. But as it bounces around like a drunken pinball, that same conventional fuel must balance it, making the machines that run on it much more inefficient. It is that back side nature of wind that fills in the rest of the story.

Counter-intuitively, wind volatility adds to the sense of demand and, even more problematically, increases both the amount and intensity of flux, the balancing of which is a major grid problem, adding to consumer cost. Consequently, wind volatility, which stems from the fact that any power the technology generates is a function of the cube of the wind speed, subverts efforts toward conservation (that is, lowering demand) and the goal of reducing the use of fossil fired machines--and the amount of fuel required for their use, since those machines now have the additional responsibility of being prosthetics for windball.

One way to consider how ridiculous wind energy is for electricity is to think about how commercial air transport would be affected if, say, 20% of all craft had to be gliders. Of course, those gliders would displace, liter for liter, some of the fuel consumed by those infernal 747s. But.... well, informed readers will know instantly about the but., particularly those waiting in farm fields for days as their gliders are hauled by truck to the nearest airfields to be towed aloft once more by those infernal 747s.

Modern societies exist on a foundation where concentrated energies allow machines to produce modern power in ways that insist upon time saving productivity. Wind cannot of itself produce modern power--only the ancient, tail wagging the dog kind that makes people wait upon it.

4308 days ago, 12:00pm | by Ella Rupprecht | Report Comment

I would love to be present during a debate between Mr. Dulzo and Mr. Martis. I suspect though, Mr. Dulzo will opt out.

4308 days ago, 12:02pm | by Tom Stacy | Report Comment

First off, I believe that centralized land use planning is a hoax - a hoax designed to prop up the value and "productive potential" of land that doesn't come by those attributes naturally. It does this at the expense of maximizing the benefits of the most productive land in a given region.

So it is from its roots that Land Use Planners believe the productive should be punished at the point of a gun to nurture the unproductive. From this basic premise flows an incentive to think less and produce inefficiently. And that's exactly what wind power pundits expect in order to foster your support for the wind industry's growth.

Our electricity systems, which are already networked across the nation, grew into existence through the efficient fulfillment of electricity demands. While government fostered the growth of our grid and generation infrastructure, they did not discriminate between sources in order to "make room" for all technologies and locations = they sought to foster winners. Government acted to pave the way for the economical access to dependable streams of electrical power by affording a boost to the dependable and efficient.

Today wind energy plays on the public's gullibility - making vague claims of benefit not supported by the idea of FAIR AND FREE TRADE - which allows producers to command a price for their product commensurate with the value enjoyed by the consumption of that product.

Never do we hear valid arguments from them that wind energy is an economically viable technology. Never do we hear valid arguments that wind energy facilities replace our economical and dependable power plants or help them decrease the cost of their product or increase the benefits to those providers and their customers.

What we hear from the clever moochers and looters of our nation's productivity and competitiveness is that:

- wind energy can power millions of homes - a clever lie since wind energy does not respond to the rise and fall of demand nor produce a stable stream of power over time.

- wind energy creates jobs - but so what? So would a law mandating that we derive 25% of our transportation from horse-drawn vehicles, 25% of our air travel from gliders, or 25% of our excavation from hand shovels. What the wind energy industry hopes is that the public will ignore the lost productivity, the lost jobs and the lost efficiency of our society through enactment of such laws.

- wind energy "done correctly" has no emissions. But what is meant by "done correctly" - and what does it cost at the plug - the plug at home and at work - compared to allowing winners to win and profit, and losers to shrivel and perish? Does "done correctly" mean wind energy BY ITSELF emits nothing into our air, land or water, yet produces the same dependability as our conventional fuels? Or does "done correctly" depend on over-building transmission infrastructure, uneconomic "electricity storage" schemes, or on the dependable, affordable technologies we already rely on, while making them less efficient, less affordable and less profitable? The answer is "Yes."

You have been treated to by Mr. Dulzo, is a plea to endorse the corruption free trade, period. The intent to force high cost, low value products on an apathetic or uneducated consumer at the expense of both the consumer and the low cost, high value producer will lead inevitably to the demise of the productive and the rise of the unproductive. I ask you, how long can a society, culture and economy survive under such rules?

4308 days ago, 12:37pm | by Mike McCann | Report Comment

Interesting conclusions, even if they are heavily biased and apparently uninformed.

With scores or even hundreds of reports of people abandoning their homes due to noise/health issues, many of whom have found it impossible to sell their homes, only an ostrich could assume there is no effect on property values. You fail to note that when developers buy out neighbors at market value, they often resell the same properties A) with buyer waivers required against any noise complaints, etc., & B) at heavily discounted prices ranging from 30% to 80% below pre-turbine market value. This type of documented trend is a clear but secret admission, upon which the wind industry enforces with confidentiality agreements as part of any buy out.

And the truly independent studies are clear: infra sound can and does have negative health impacts for more than a "crazy" minority of neighbors. Laughing it off "because you can't hear it" makes as much sense as claiming only visible sunlight spectrum's matter, because ultra violet light "can't be seen", ...which if I recall correctly is a major cause of skin cancer, while only leaving some people a little bit sun burned.

As a member of any professional land use association, it is quite surprising that you obviously are not objective in your comments or the data upon which you rely. Would you think it is appropriate to approve the construction of 100+ 50 story office buildings with flashing lights and huge audio transmitting devices (speakers) in the midst of a rural residential community, and surround neighbors with those structures and their impacts? How about 50 story open-air industrial operations, almost all of which are able to follow the common sense principle of keeping noisy operations within completely enclosed buildings? (The 20-40 foot tall versions) Why is it surprising that unrestricted hours of operation elicit complaints of sleep deprivation..again, documented by thousands of individual reports,... when virtually all industrial operations have a requirement to shut down during normal nighttime sleep periods, if they emit any noise beyond their own property?

Forcing a high volume of 24 hour per day interstate truck traffic onto rural roads and through communities only designed to handle pick up trucks would be abhorrent to any professional land planner, traffic engineer, municipal board, etc. I suggest this is a good analogy to typical wind energy developments, in scale, intensity and impacts therefrom.

But then again, my livelihood does not depend upon only looking at or citing favorable public relations positions of the wind industry.

P.S. How many home owners losing significant equity is considered to be "acceptable" collateral damage?


Michael McCann
McCann Appraisal, LLC

4308 days ago, 1:31pm | by Tim Haines | Report Comment

I'm guessing the same thing Ella!! Very well spoken Mr. McCann.

4308 days ago, 2:59pm | by The Great Don Quixote | Report Comment

Mr Dulzo quips, “I stopped debating climate deniers about a year ago.”

I can see why. You are terrible at it!

4308 days ago, 4:20pm | by Andrew Heydinger | Report Comment

Who is this guy Jim Dulzo? It sounds like he is a senior energy policy specialist specializing in moronic name calling and false associations? So anyone who disagrees with him on wind energy is called a windbagger. Is that supposed to be intelligent or something? It sounds rather immature to me. And also people who differ with him on wind energy must also be misinformed about rape. I fail to see the connect here. He also says something about the late Neil Armstrong which is totally absurd. Why doesn't he accuse the people who have revealed some of the short comings of wind energy members of the flat earth society? It would make as much sense as his other comments. Just stop the name calling and and crazed associations and look at the facts. Wind energy has gotten cheaper over the past 30 years but it it still too expensive so it requires huge government subsidies to make it profitable for large multinational companies. Forcing people to accept these large industrial wind turbines in their residential neighborhoods unjustly drives down their property values and severely damages the quality of their lives. These are a few of the hard facts, Jim, face them and do not deny them or refuse to debate them. It will impose extreme hardships on the residents of MI if the proposal to require 25% alternative energy by 2025 passes. Technically it is not attainable.

4308 days ago, 5:28pm | by Barb Lawkin | Report Comment

We should just keep building more coal plants. The companies who produce energy from coal do not receive any subsidies and are in no way monopolistic. I hope we can level the playing field and stop encouraging people to compete against this very successful industry. If someone wants to start a company that supplies energy, they can do it on their own, gal' darn it.

Coal is pretty good for the environment, too. Because of the mercury-filled fish I ate over the years, my son now has autism. Now he picks up trash on the sides of roads. He's really sticking it to those dang polluters.

Coal has been around since time began. How dare anyone question it and bring up any other way to power things.



4308 days ago, 5:29pm | by stondeez | Report Comment

Mr Dulzo reminds me of when I was 8 years old, and my friend next door bought those X-Ray specs out of the back of a comic book. My friend swore up and down that they worked until he let me try them out, and when I proved to him that they didnt work, he called me a DOODIE-HEAD !!!
Grow up Mr Dulzo !!

4308 days ago, 5:48pm | by stondeez | Report Comment

Ms. Lawkin if your autistic son lived next to a industrial wind facility he would have to move like many people with autistic children have had to do around the world because of their adverse effects. My autistic son has to cover his ears when my dog scratchs so when industrial wind turbines were proposed for my area I visited an industrial wind farm. I know if they had been built ,because of their thumping, I would have had to move to protect my son ,not send him out to pick up trash along the highway.

4308 days ago, 5:52pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Ms. Larkin:

Re: mercury:

"How do America's coal-burning power plants fit into the picture? They emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. But U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons; Chinese power plants eject 400 tons; and volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year.

All these emissions enter the global atmospheric system and become part of the U.S. air mass. Since our power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere."

Something to consider.

But I personally prefer a nat gas to nuclear strategy. Much lower density land use than renewables and produces dispatachable power.

And wind is subsidized at 80 times the rate per MWh of coal or gas yet it produces only a couple percent of total production and has yet to drive a coal plant out of business. Nat gas and nukes can replace coal plants. Wind plants cannot.

4308 days ago, 11:02pm | by Chris Campbell | Report Comment

I've heard several radio reports in the last week or two, indicating that Iowa has reached 20% wind-generated electricity. I had been a bit skeptical of the usefulness of wind as a generating source but if Iowa has hit 20%, then perhaps it is a feasible component of generating capacity. Do others know how this 20%is attained--how much backup capacity is needed, how does the backup affect economics, etc.?

4308 days ago, 11:10pm | by Cary Shineldecker | Report Comment

I will keep this short as I have argued with the limited of Mr. Dulzo before. The facts are out there for critically minded people to research. Wind is not the answer. Certainly subsidized and unregulated is not the answer. My home its still for sale and no offers yet. The lights surround us at night and have taken away our stars. Several turbines out every window, now twenty two can be seen from our yard. Pureblue sky covered by 500' monstrosities. Sunrises now fill our home with flicker. Noise now fill our nights. What are loved for our life's time has been stolen. What we have cherished has been lost. Go ahead and call me a wind bagger. Nothing hurts any more. Even my emotions are now gone. Visit my home. Maybe you'll buy it.

4308 days ago, 11:46pm | by Colleen Plummer | Report Comment

Excellent post Mr Mike McCann. It's a waste of time to reason with most of the pro wind group... They do not have the brain or heart capacity to even comprehend what they do/are doing to good people. It's about $.... I'm just shocked that so many are selling their souls for so cheap

4308 days ago, 11:50pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Chris Campbell:

Really good questions!

Several things regarding IA.

First, according to EIA.GOV, their total generation from all fuel sources is half of ours. Their 20% would be our 10%. In 2011 they reached 19% wind. Almost the entire balance was from coal which is how they keep their costs down. They are closer to Powder River Coal fields. Michigan has significantly more nuclear production. Since wind is tied to fossil in MI at a 1 part wind 3 parts fossil ratio, 25% wind would require 75% fossil. This would require abandoning nuclear in MI and replacing it with natural gas. Or wind would have to be curtailed at its peak output during low demand which diminishes environmental gains even further.

IA has another solution. They dump wind across state lines where those states permit it to apply to their renewable energy requirement. Michigan's existing and proposed RPS laws force the renewable portion to come from inside the state making the interstate part of IA's formula inapplicable in MI.

Further, IA adds a 1.5 cent tax credit to instate wind energy. When you add the state PTC to the federal PTC currently at 2.2 cents (3.4 actually because it is after tax) you come up with a total wind subsidy of about 4-5 cents per kwh. Wholesale MISO pricing for electricity is typically 3-4 cents. So you see that wind in IA is being incentivized to the tune of roughly the wholesale price of energy.

This then begs the question: do we want to adopt the entire IA model of exporting wind out of the state, replacing non-CO2 emitting nuclear with fossil and then adding another 1.5 cent per kwh to get there? I don't think so. Industrial ratepayers especially should not think so. The US steel industry consumes $18 billion per year in electricity. Just a 10% increase in electric costs is $1,8 billion, or roughly$18,000 per year per employee. Ask for a raise when that happens!

But now comes the real question: Why do I have to answer this? Why doesn't Mr. Dulzo give his readers the entire story? I thought that was the high and noble calling of true journalists. My data is not unique or contrived. It is in plain view at EIA.GOV, a universally accepted credible source.

I am glad I can be here at my own expense sharing the data that MLUI should be sharing as a service to their readers.

Perhaps at the debate...

Kevon Martis
"Truth in energy policy"

4307 days ago, 8:45am | by Cary Shineldecker | Report Comment

I would be happy to join in the debate. We have more than enough highly educated, extremely intelligent, and overwhelmingly passionate individuals to dominate competition with fact. I will lead with the human impact side. Who would be any more will suited than I to debate what it is really like to live at ground zero. I am ready. I say an open forum before the elections. " Bring it on greenies"

4307 days ago, 10:04am | by Cris Currie | Report Comment

I'm a retired person, who spent part of my career as an environmental education teacher. During my work time, my family donated for (15) years to WE Electric Power Company to have wind farm built in Wisconsin.And we cheered when we saw it go on line, with all its graceful structures and open land and few houses.

We then signed the papers on our future retirement property on the Garden Peninsula in Upper MIchigan. Nobody told us that a wind company had already gotten alot of lease signatures on this peninsula, without a presurvey or referendum vote being done on who was for or against this project. Yet local politicians still proclaim that a majority of residents on our peninsula are for the wind farm idea. And this is being said, as even many locals did not know what was going on long after contracts had been signed. So basically about (60) people or (6%) of a total poplulation of about a (1000) people decided the fate for the rest, which is not the way that democracy was suppose to work.

The Peninsula is very narrow, especially where our property is, which is only about (2) miles wide. Just by eyeballing the area one can see that it hosts a bounty of wildlife, particularly migratory birds and butterflies. Yet the wind company's bird study said that no significant bird and bat populations existed on our peninusula. I was shocked because I just had passed about (200) cranes in the field across from me on my way to this wind farm meeting.

Then I discovered from a national agency that the bird study had been done during non-migratory months, which is like trying to study leaves on deciduous trees during winter time. Having been a science teacher, this bogus bird study did not set well with me because it was not good science. And to make matters worse, I later also found out that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency had repeatedly written the wind company asking them to cease and desist from considering the Garden Peninsula as a industrial wind farm site. The wind company had been told that the Garden Peninsula was a major stopover point for the "Lake Michigan Flyway" for migratory birds, which the wind company blithly ignored as it continued to lie about the status of bird populations there. The company could not comply with the (3) miles setback from any shores on the peninsula, but was putting in wind turbines anyway. Here I had been getting wind speed data for a potential wind turbine of our own from the company, while not knowing that it could not be trusted. That's when we began scrutinizing things closer. And I was amazed at what low levels this wind company would stoop to in order to put a wind farm on our little peninsula.

The company had assured concerned citizens that they didn't have anything to worry about, like such things as oil spills coming from wind turbines. These people were concerned because of their past history, where the health department did a study , which had declared the groundwater and wells to be contaminated, due to the fact that porous limestone bedrock, which is very close to the surface all over the peninsula, had allowed contaminants in. They now call the Garden Peninsula the "Black Water District." But despite these verbal assurances the very first installed wind turbine had an oil spill anyway, after only a year of being up and running. And when it was investigated, it was found out that the company had declared that only (5) gallons of oil had spilled onto the ground. But witnesses had said that it was seen that large and heavy equipment had come in and scooped up all the soil at the base of this wind turbine, which one would not need if only (5) gallons had spilled. They had also learned that the company had to call in an expert to fly in all the way from California just to deal with the oil coming out of the wind turbine. So now people are thinking that the wind company is lying again.

They also took note of the fact that the wind company tried to buy the photos that were taken of the accident that occurred, where the blades to one of the next wind turbines had crashed to the ground. What scrupulous company does such a thing, unless suppression and cover ups are the mode of operation for them? And when speaking of suppression of pertinent and important facts, why would a local politician and supporter of wind farms tell someone in its study committee on the lease contracts to not present it to the public at one of its public meetings? This independent study deemed the lease contracts to be bad. I read several of these contracts. And I noticed the gag orders in them, which said that lease signers could not complain about a multitude of things. And that might explain why the media never hears how even the lease signers all over the country are unhappy with the fact that they have signed with some wind farm company, once the true facts get out. I've gone back to other wind farm websites and have read what farmers have said in the aftermath of wind company promotional campaigns. And there are many that are not good.

At one point, early on, I would have joined you, Jim Dulzo, in calling wind farm complainers "wind baggers", who have a hoax to play out on the public. But I'm not that way anymore. I look at wind farm issues with new and enlightened eyes. And since one of my past careers was in the field of psychology, I now think that the technique of "projection" of one's own faults onto innocent people is being done, when people like you talk. The ones that are accusing wind farm resistors of being deceptive, fraudulent and engaing in trickery are in reality the perpetrators of this hoax. When it gets right down to it, wind farm subsidies and royalties being paid by taxpayers, like me, is just another form of a massive welfare program that is not acting responsibly or with integrity. They exploit other entities and even the ones that have signed up, just like the capetbaggers in the Old South did, after the Civil War. They've taken advantage of the farmers on our own little peninsula, because they're desperate and economically deprived. And I take issue with that, after years of supporting programs that help farmers rather than doing them in. So you can beat your chest, Jim Dulzo, like some overly aggressive, silver backed gorrilla would do and point your finger at what you call "windbaggers" as you do, without any open minded, self reflection of any kind. But we Garden Peninsula people have seen and heard with our own eyes and ears, what wind companies are truly like underneath their thinly disguised and superficial veneer. And what we see and hear about them is not good. And since you initiated the name calling stratey, while using the term of "windbaggers", I don't feel my usual restraint in using a derogatory term of my own anymore.

So now when I think about having (500) foot wind turbines looming over the air above my property I get mad as hell. These monsters are (5) times higher than what the tallest trees on the whole peninsula are. Their presence will be in my air space as I sit on my front porch to enjoy what once was the loveliness of my once open skies overhead. They will be a constant and painful reminder of Tim Taylor in the telvision comedy called "Home Improvement", who always goes over the edge on building behemouths that end up in disasters in the end. And all of this makes me want to go back to the lease signers at the wind farm that I helped to bring into existence and apologize to them.

4307 days ago, 11:05am | by Good stuff | Report Comment

Lots of comments from people who overnight became climate scientists and energy production experts/engineers.

4307 days ago, 11:49am | by Cary Shineldecker | Report Comment

Good Stuff: If you would like to begin trading credentials and experience, you would soon see that we wind baggers are highly educated and tremendously experienced industrial professionals. The reason we don't back down is because we are who we are. Engineers, geologists, educators, physicists, professional engineers, scientists, energy specialists, and real estate experts, just to name a few. We have the science, you have subsidies, tax breaks, and talking points.

4307 days ago, 3:32pm | by Matt Emery | Report Comment

"...The Wall Street Journal slammed the report’s data, methodology, cherry picking, lack of transparency—and conclusion."

--Jim, please cite a source for where the WSJ slammed the King Carlos University study. I would like to read it.

4307 days ago, 5:11pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Mr. Dulzo questioned the veracity of my claim of someone abandoning their home in McBain: " ...lamenting that turbines drove a McBain family away (without naming them or their address.)"


I hope this is adequate evidence. I think you owe me an apology.

Kevon Martis
"Raising the Standards of Journalism in My Spare Time"

4307 days ago, 9:47pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Regarding the King Juan Carlos University study:


HMMMM...AWEA casts a long shadow indeed.

4306 days ago, 9:48am | by Tim Haines | Report Comment

Who gives this Dulzo guy the paper to be written on? Cheap pop shots is all I'm reading. Snippy little man, kind of reminds me of the idiots from Consumers and their attempts to verbally bully people during the "wind park" meetings in Mason County. I see MLUI is in Traverse City, Probably all in bed with the land company that back doored the property leases too.

I also doubt the little fella is going to apologize to anyone. I don't know where the wind people get their pushiness but I've never been around a business based group that is more pushy and verbally brazen.

4306 days ago, 11:13am | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Good question. And if you dig around a bit you will see that Mr. Dulzo works closely with an entire class of wind promoters including Rich VanderVeen, Steven Smiley, Paul Proudfoot, Mark Clevey, Mark Schauer, Julie Baldwin and John Sarver to just name a few. The connections are profound. And the mutual admiration they have for each other has given them the support they need to ignore colossal policy failures like the now abandoned wind turbine siting guidelines.

4305 days ago, 8:16am | by Good stuff | Report Comment

I just checked out the IICC website and I'm quite confused. Are they looking out for the "welfare of residents" or are they looking out for the welfare or residents who choose to purchase property close to another property where it's legal to construct a wind turbine?

4305 days ago, 9:05am | by Good stuff | Report Comment

Has there ever been a study that looks at the impact rural homes and windows have on birds. IICC has that study right?

4305 days ago, 10:10am | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

You mean raptor deaths from cats and windows? Golden Eagles? Sandhill Cranes? Bale Eagles? Indiana Bat? Federally endangered and protected species?

Using avian deaths due to windows and cat to justify avian deaths from turbines is like using the holocaust to justify mass murder. Of course Black Swamp Bird Observatory, American Bird Conservancy, MIDNR and USFWS have similar concerns. Maybe MLUI does not?

Of course if turbines had any ability to make meaningful and cost effective impacts in reducing airborne pollution one might conclude it is worth it. But alas they do not.

4305 days ago, 10:20am | by Good stuff | Report Comment

Not using it to justify. Just pointing out that your rural home and every rural harms wildlife. Force vs. Consent says the real estate industry should be held accountable for harm just like every other industry.

4305 days ago, 2:10pm | by Teri VanderKolk | Report Comment

Force vs. Consent, Cary, Cris Currie and IICC aka the rural farm home association - next time you purchase a home you should do some research on what is allowed and not allowed on the farmland around your home. A responsible home buyer ask these questions and good real estate agent should be able to answer them for you. It sounds like the IICC is out to protect the homeowners who live out in the middle of nowhere that did not do enough research before buying their homes. Frankly, why should the rest of us care about your property values? You flat out do NOT have the right to a certain home value. Next time please consider buying a home in a community that does not allow wind turbines.

As long as you're living in a house out in the middle of nowhere, you can't really say much about a any development's impact on wildlife. You are living in a home that harms the wildlife.

People want power from different sources other than coal and they are challenged by a few because you decided to buy your house in the middle of nowhere.

4305 days ago, 10:35pm | by stondeez | Report Comment

Mr or Ms Vanderkolk

As long as you're living in a house in the middle of the city, you can't really say much about any industrial wind farms impact on anything.


"Next time please consider buying a home in a community that does not allow wind turbines. "

My famiy has owned and farmed my land for almost 200 years to feed you city folk.The wind developers came here and asked to change our ordinance to fit their needs. So much for "do some research on what is allowed and not allowed on the farmland around your home"

Maybe you should start growing your own food, like my family has to, to support you city folk, in Michigan for the last almost 200 years. Also you should try farming and tell us "houses in the middle of nowhere" that supply you with food ,whether we need our communities destroyed by you city folks needs for power, just to supply you with your climate controlled lifestyle.

Country folk want power from different sources other than wind power and they are challenged by a city folk because they were brainwashsed to believe that wind power causes no harm as long as you live in town.

Just remember the X-RAY specs (industrial wind turbines) really work.

the X-RAY specs (industrial wind turbines) really work.

the X-RAY specs (industrial wind turbines) really work.

you are falling into a deep sleep

the X-RAY specs (industrial wind turbines) really work.

AWEA says

the X-RAY specs (industrial wind turbines) really work.

MLUI says

the X-RAY specs (industrial wind turbines) really work.

Jim Dulzo says

the X-RAY specs (industrial wind turbines) really work.

As we say on the farm " if you tell the hog enough times he's the king on the way to slaughter, he won't mind being bacon in the morning.

Just food for thought city folk.

4305 days ago, 6:14am | by Teri VanderKolk | Report Comment

stondeez - that comment was not to or for farmers but thanks. I would like to see my farming friends keep their land and use is as productively as THEY see fit whether that's growing food for us city folk or growing energy for us city folk.

I do know that wind turbines work. Blades cause a shaft that runs from the rotor of the turbine to the generator to spin. The generator turns it to electricity. It didn't take X-RAY specs to understand that. People have been doing it for literally thousands of years. You are aware of this process?

4304 days ago, 8:49am | by Ella Rupprecht | Report Comment

To: Good Stuff..... If you can't use your real name, you obviously don't believe in what you are verbally stating.
To:T. VanderKolk, MANY, and I say MANY, citizens that live in rural farm area have lived there for YEARS, not a few years, not two years, but 20 or MORE years. It is not right for my neighbor to INDUSTRIALIZE my back yard or anyones back yard. I CHOSE to by my house on a highway, I Choose to live there, I listen to the traffic all day long. AT NIGHT, about 8 or 9 pm, the traffic subsides and at night I can sleep with my windows open. I choose this, I did not chose to have a wind company come into the rural area to erect Industrial Wind Turbines. WE, Have a voice and OUR OPINIONS matter.

Food, and water.......... food and water.........
Electricity I can live without....... and so can you.
Turn off your airconditioner when your not home, turn off those thousands of Christmas lights sprawled along numerous homes during the winter. Turn off those 'stand by' electronics lights that use power. Conservation is the ONLY way to save this earth.
Go live in Syria or numerous places around the world where electricity is the LAST THING on theirs minds.
QUIT ruining the earth and most of all....

I respect Mr. Martis opinion, why? because his words are wise and thoughtful. He has taken the time to do the research and truely discover the real story behind Industrial Wind Turbines.

4304 days ago, 8:56am | by Ella | Report Comment

...........Using avian deaths due to windows and cat to justify avian deaths from turbines is like using the holocaust to justify mass murder.......

Very well said Mr. Martis........

4304 days ago, 9:08am | by Ella | Report Comment

And a little food for thought :

How many people realize that the thumb of Michigan is the third best soil on the planet.
The 3rd......... the 3rd best soil on this PLANET.

BE Happy with what you have, not with what you think you want.

4304 days ago, 9:15am | by Good stuff | Report Comment

Ella - do you know what Mr. Martis was referring to when he said that? I can't seem to figure it out. Did someone try to justify avian deaths that way?

4304 days ago, 9:21am | by Ella | Report Comment

Dear Mr. Mrs. good stuff.......
As an adult, a mature person, I will speak to you should you use your real name in an intelligent manner, as an intelligent individual.
Don't try to confuse me. It isn't going to happen.

4304 days ago, 12:42pm | by Force vs Consent | Report Comment

Good stuff - I believe you may have a reading comprehension problem. I clearly stated the developer needs to be held responsible for lost property values not the real estate industry. I’ve done the math and for less than 1% of revenue they could either compensate nearby landowners or buy them out. If you want wind to succeed why not get behind this simple compromise? Why should the profits of highly subsidized developers have higher priority than the financial wellbeing of thousands of families?

Good Stuff –This may be a difficult concept for you to grasp but cats killing sparrows in no way justifies turbines killing raptors, cranes and bats.

Good Stuff and Vanderkook – You both have a basic misunderstanding of how wind developers work. Most communities are not prepared for wind development because developers come into an area quietly and sign the big landowners before they announce the project. They do this intentionally in order force their way into a community.
Zoning is the only way to regulate wind developmemnt and in my area the large landowners ended zoning just as the threat of wind development began to surface.

4304 days ago, 3:34pm | by Force vs. Consent | Report Comment

One more thought for Teri

You are wrong when it comes to property values. I do have the right to protect my home and quality of life that’s the whole purpose of zoning. People recognized centuries ago that what someone does on his side of the fence can impact his neighbors therefore rules were needed to protect everyone’s rights. Unfortunately billion dollar developers do not want to abide by these rules. They want to bypass local control and force their turbines on unwilling neighbors. I must ask, if you are truly devoted to wind power why are you not willing to help pay for the full cost? Why do you feel compelled to force this loss on me?

4304 days ago, 4:41pm | by Teri VanderKolk | Report Comment

I agree. You do have the right to protect your home and quality of life as long as the actions don't infringe on someone else's rights.

4304 days ago, 10:13pm | by stondeez | Report Comment

Teri VanderKolk quote

"I do know that wind turbines work. Blades cause a shaft that runs from the rotor of the turbine to the generator to spin. The generator turns it to electricity."

You forgot one of the most important processes of industrial wind turbines they need power from another source to start them up.You are aware of this process?

Maybe you weren't told this part of the process when you ordered a wind turbine, X-ray specs , sea monkey's etc. from the ad out of your Casper the Friendly Ghost comic book.

Another quote from Vanderkolk

"I would like to see my farming friends keep their land and use is as productively as THEY see fit whether that's growing food for us city folk or growing energy for us city folk"

Key words "THEY see fit"

So you dont mind if I "see fit" to "using MY land productively" by subdividing MY ground for housing, fracking for gas or oil and mining for coal or uranium.

You city folk and your industrial wind energy cronies at the MLUI should leave us country folk alone and let us decide whether we "see fit" to feed you.

4303 days ago, 8:26pm | by Charlie Weaver | Report Comment

I haven't read all the comments; but you might want to back off a bit on your claim that wind (power) does no harm to wildlife. It, in fact, can and does cause the demise of close encounters with birds. Agreed, the danger can be alleviated by where they are placed and when they are operted. Stil...

4303 days ago, 8:38pm | by Charlie Weaver | Report Comment

I should have said that it (wind power) can indeed cause the demise of birds during close encounters. Because of your abbreviated blurbs, it would appear that i may not be in favor of expanding wind power as an energy source. I am tremendously supportive of it when it is carefully located.

4303 days ago, 11:22pm | by Teri Vanderkolk | Report Comment

stondeez - yes, you can make your own decisions about how to use your land.

4303 days ago, 12:32am | by Common Sense | Report Comment

Here's something I've found interesting that all should read.
Conservative thinktanks step up attacks against Obama's clean energy strategy
From gust to gale

4303 days ago, 6:21am | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

Here's something interesting I think Common Sense should read.


4302 days ago, 9:35pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment

"As founder and executive director of the Michigan Land Use Institute I learned that one measure of success in public policy disputes is how badly the other side misbehaves. By that measure, TCL&P’s pursuit of the 30By20 renewable plan and its proposed biomass project is on the right track."

– Keith Schneider

Hmmm. Is calling people "windbaggers' misbehaving? We may be on the right track!

Kevon Martis
"Complimentary MLUI Fact Checker"

4300 days ago, 4:31pm | by Laura Van Camp | Report Comment

Dulzo hangs out with the likes of John Sarver... Well, he must be credible then...


Or Mark Clevey, who leaves mildly threatening messages on answering machines of private citizens involved in a local referendum... (Mine... And I have the audio if anyone is interested).

4300 days ago, 9:37pm | by Common Sense | Report Comment

Wind Power: From NIMBY to YIMBY

4300 days ago, 9:56pm | by Tom Gallery | Report Comment

About every six months I look at these sites. Then I realize why I don't look again for a while.
There was a wonderful comment at the TC Film Festival: "The dialogue on any controversial issue is dominated by the extreme 10% on either side - there is never a rational middle."
Wind farms are such an issue.The extremes are content to exaggerate their positions to the point that nothing seems believable.
Wind farms are large commercial undertakings that have little to do with the local community. Some money flows in, but most flows to outstate and out of country investors. Returns are very high - 8-10%.
Payments to landowners are low. A typical 2 Mw machine generates well over $400,000 per year in retail electricity. A landowner is lucky to get $10-15,000 per year.
The are virtually no local jobs after the build-out. Maintenance is from outstate companies. One man-year can maintain 20 commercial turbines.
A commercial turbine in a good wind resource will pay off in 5-10 years. The next 20 years is free electricity and substantial profits. These machines pay back big-time. That's why Consumers and DTE are such advocates of wind.
The local community does reap benefits. Property taxes, personal property taxes and landowner payments make these systems very attractive.
The tax incentives are no different from those for any other industry: Investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation, etc. The tax code has always encouraged investment in industries that generate wealth.
For some reason, folks have singled out wind for a special kind of criticism. The myths are legion: Bird kills, property values, noise, health issues, etc. None of these have been sustained by facts but the myths persist. I was an engineer for the defense in a recent lawsuit in Leelanau County. The plaintiffs brought out several so-called experts to prove the evils of a nearby wind turbine. The judge sustained none of the complaints of noise, property value loss, shadows, visual impact or health problems.
Commercial wind developers do behave badly. They demand secrecy in their lease agreements (why?), tell various conflicting stories about their process, bring in questionable "experts" on noise and financial benefits. They often outright lie about their project, the scope and benefits. Small municipal zoning boards are required to rule on very complicated technical issues and claims from the "extreme 10%" on both sides. The State of Michigan and the MPSC offer no help. They just leave these poor local zoning boards to sort it out for themselves.
The best way to evaluate these systems is to look at the record. MIchigan has had commercial wind for 5-8 years and communities have had time to stabilize. Most seem to accept it. There are, of course, some who don't.
A great study would be to examine the entire experience here and in nearby states. But I suspect you could not find a neutral entity do perform such a study.

4298 days ago, 1:43pm | by M'Lynn | Report Comment

Jim, you wrote a good conversation starter. Although it may not have been your intent, this has become a great forum in which to read many viewpoints. I agree with a writer earlier in this thread, it might be of value to move this into a public face-to-face arena. We seriously need to build public consensus around wind (if that's possible), and examine our alternatives honestly warts and all.

4293 days ago, 12:48pm | by Peter Sinclair | Report Comment

wow. the ditto heads really came out for this one.
wind myths answered here

4287 days ago, 9:58pm | by Kevon Martis | Report Comment


Wind realities here.

4275 days ago, 4:48pm | by I <heart> Helicopters | Report Comment

Mr. Dulzo, don't let the hypocrites bother you. To protect themselves from what they believed was a threat to their peace and quiet, both Force vs Consent and Matt Emery felt it was appropriate to apply to the State of Michigan for a permit to put a heliport on their land in an attempt to stop wind development. They live virtually side by side in Joyfield township. Helicopters affect surrounding residents with noise issues, have an extremely adverse affect on wildlife, and I'm almost certain, the increased helicopter traffic will make some properties less than attractive to people looking to move into this rural area. Force vs Consent has the audacity to say wind turbines were being forced upon him, yet he's gone ahead and forced upon his neighbors, reduced property values, safety, noise, pollution and quality of life issues. The very same things he wildly insists should not be forced upon him. Touche'. Why worry about the Eagles and the Cranes and the Geese now? They won't be sticking around while those noisy choppers are buzzing the heavens. Neither will the deer, bears, Indiana bats or any sensible tourists who might have once thought this was the perfect place to live.

4271 days ago, 1:27pm | by Summit Township Resident | Report Comment

Hyporites? Excuse me!! The west shores of Michigan are one of the major paths of migratory birds. We have 56 turbines DIRECTLY in this path. I know people who did jail time for accidently shooting a protected species, yet our government from local to the national level ignore not only this issue, but the safety, health and welfare of it's citizens. Established federal and state laws were manipulated and or ignored to accomidate zoning literally written by Consumers Energy. WitnesseS saw a county commissioner recieve the zoning wording and hand it to commissioners, adopted approx. ten minutes later by Mason County Board of Commissioners. Several who voted yes even stated they didn't even understand the technical paper. Safety manual for the Vesta turbines used here have safety setbacks of 1300' for the safety of their employees and direct employees not to be in line with the turbine blades. All but 2 Mason County Commissioners voted 1,000' setbacks knowing the the turbine manufactures setback for safety was 1,300 '. Testing of the turbines have already proven the so called studies Consumers claimed were accurate weren't. Shadow flicker and yes friends lunar flicker from a turbine a mile away that wasn't even included in the models used for predicting the casting flicker into residents homes.These are residents who were included in this wind farm never signing a lease and never compensated a penny. Don't even post the lies I see here when people in my community are having to live with the consequences of the lies told by those who choose to wear blinders. Most chose the almighty $$$$ over there family and neighbors. I haven't even mentioned the warning from the gas company who warned the county and Consumers Energy at a public hearing at WSCC NOT to erect these 50 story turbines near the sour gas lines due to vibration alone could breach the welds of the piping. This is deadly gas. (google sour gas) Area newspapers and our own county government denies this and states they came to an agreement. Internal emails requested under FOIA prove otherwise. If all this is so great why do they have to tell lies? Is this part of the UN Agenda 21 program being pushed globally? At our hearing that we taped it was a 3-1 against either turbines to be build or asking for greater setbacks. They build them anyway. So KUDOS to Matt Emery..... Those like the writer "Wind realities here" are just a little put back that they are being beat at their own game....

4269 days ago, 12:06pm | by Ridgewalker | Report Comment

To summit twp. Resident:
The problem with what Matt Emery and others are doing is that they’re claiming to pursue legitimate zoning at the same time hatching out a plan to control the land use surrounding their properties by secretly applying for ‘heliport’ licenses. The worst part is that 2 candidates for township office…Matt Emery and Jim Evans are involved, as are two members of the twp. planning commission…Betsy Evans and Kurt Krueger. It couldn’t be less appropriate for them to be involved in this.
And while I acknowledge your concerns about the proximity of wind turbines to gas lines (and your other concerns as well)…why aren’t you more concerned about the ageing lines themselves?

4202 days ago, 4:21pm | by Cristi Currie | Report Comment

I still remember my college days and classes in science, when there were footnotes and reference sections at the end of books and dissertations that cited studies and the latest research. Whatever happen to those? Without them all we have is a bunch of school kids having a verbal tiff on the playground that some adult has to break up. Everyone talks about good science. But I don't see any data from impartial sources on websites like this, which name the companies that they have worked for.

4202 days ago, 4:47pm | by Cristi Currie | Report Comment

This is an addendum to what I just posted a few minutes ago. I just re-read what I had also posted (105) days ago and felt that I must take my own advice, which is to research and verify what I have been hearing on the Garden Peninusula. I'm referring to the supposed "oil spill" on the Garden Peninsula as one example and the suspicious sounding behavior surrounding that. There are other reports that need the same attention and scrutiny from me and some that I have already done.

3959 days ago, 2:10am | by Common sense | Report Comment

Wind Energy IS A SCAM!! I could care less how much you try and prop it up, won't change the facts. Are people getting dumber or what? All you have to do is follow the money, it's that simple. My guess is that the author of this article is benefiting in one way or another from this obvious and ludicrous SCAM!! That, or he is one the most easily duped, ignorant, naive, head-in-the-sand retards on the planet!!! Common sense people, common sense. If you don't have any, then I suggest you run out to Walmart and buy yourself some (yes, that was sarcasm). No wonder the US is about dead last, intellectually at least, in the entire world! WAKE UP AMERICA, quit being suckerbobs!!!!!!!

3812 days ago, 5:38pm | by inherit the wind | Report Comment

Do you know what the total mass of the atmosphere might be?
How about 5.1x10 18 kg. Whats man contribution to it by burning fossil fuel? Ask Al Gore, he might know.
This panic about "global warming", green house gas, and other
disaster buzz words needs one more addition; a laugh track.
Water vapor, which is a gas, retains more heat than carbon dioxide or any other gas in the atmosphere.
So whats the beef ? I need not expound on illusions to give them reality. You do the math. And check the history of climate change over the last thousand years. surprise surprise you been lied to again. Wind turbines are a joke and an insult to Mother Earth.

3445 days ago, 12:43am | by Cristi Currie | Report Comment

This one is belatedly for TERI VANDERKOLK, since I did not see it until today and you had specifically pointed out my name in your comments here. You had said that a responsible person should have done their research first before buying a property that they later find out is getting a wind farm around it. In response to that let me say that you had impulsively and rashly assumed that I had not done my research when I had.

My husband and I had been looking in (2) states and hundreds of places for property. And I had asked citizens, officials and realtors in most all of them if anything big was coming into their areas in the form of industry or mining, or transmission lines. Where I eventually bought got asked questions by me as well. And our realtor, citizens and township supervisor said nothing about the presence of a wind developer. Yet I had to sign a disclosure statement on our old place but no disclosure was done on our new place. So don't act so uppity and smug.

Search Archives

Michigan Land Use Institute

148 E. Front Street, Suite 301
Traverse City, MI 49684-5725
p (231) 941-6584 
e comments@mlui.org