Don't trust these guys. This is the old bait and switch. Once they have one tower 4 miles out don't you think that number will be added to? And since they will be there why not just go south. This company has already shown that it does not deal in good faith and is just adapting it's tactics. Once termites get a start, it real difficult to get rid of them.

A few miles north , eh? I guess now on our walk to the Big Sable Lighthouse we'll have something new to see on the horizon. If the pump storgae area was wrong, going a "bit farther north" is way wrong. Four miles out, well I think my depth finder called that better than 250 feet deep off the ledge. If that's the case, seems to me they could have gone ten miles out farther south and the beach view would not have been a discussion. With each new discussion, I get the feeling there has been little effort of study and the "windmen" are just putting out proposals that are finacially attractive to themselves. With another no vote by a council, maybe we'll get all the info out with these alternative proposals and see what the real truth might be.

There are lot of other places in the state where wind farms can be built and operate just fine. Why do the developers have to pick one of the most beautiful areas in the state? Another fine example of Michigan legislates not doing what they should and listening to big business. =

DO you suppose they could learn from the Northern states where cold weather prevents the windmills from operating? You think it's cold in Minnesota? Try Lake Michigan!

Objections to Aegir, contrary to the accusations of NIMBYism, have less to do with the size and location of the project than the uncertainty of the effect of a large number of enormous turbines on the ecology of a fresh water lake. Whether the turbines are 4 miles offshore (still 'nearshore' by other development standards which range from 6 to 15 miles offshore) or farther north, the questions still remain: how does the presence of turbines affect bird migration? Will birds come ashore and nest in our dunes or avoid the area in avoiding the turbines? Will the huge turbine bases encourage the growth of invasive shellfish? How will fishing and boating be affected? How disturbing is the flicker effect - especially during sunset? When the lake is calm - which is most of the time - how will the sound of 'waves' mask the noise of the turbines (as Harald Dirdal suggests)? There are simply too many unanswered questions and too much at stake to use Lake Michigan as a laboratory experiment for wind power.

put it out by the little river gill nets

Still no good in my opinion. Try 14 miles offshore, just for starters. Four miles is still way too close, and an eye-sore at best. Moving north also puts it smack dab in front of the Ludington Harbor, also no good to me.

Scandia/Havgul, Is there a language problem? What part of "NO" do you not understand?

Shifting the windfarm slightly north, making it smaller and placing it a bit farther from shore will solve nothing! Windmills of their proposed height, even 4 miles from shore will still dominate all shoreline views. The windfarm would have to be more than 8 miles from shore in order to have "some" days when it won't be visible. The residents of Oceana county have made their feelings known to Scandia. Now Scandia proposes shifting the windfarm slightly to the north hoping the residents of Mason county and Ludington won't have the same issues. What are they thinking?

Just say no, no matter how many they want to use. The public loses with this project, the foreign companies and their American off-shoots are the only winners. All profit for them, ugly monstrocities in the midlle of the beautiful Lake Michigan for the public. I can hear it now, a child asking his mom, "mommy, can we go watch the sunset on the windmills at the lake?" Ha,ha. The real question will be, "why are there windmills in our Lake Michigan?" "So a foreign company can make money selling electricity to Chicago." Just say no to any windmills in the Big Lake of Michigan.

Wind turbines do NOT belong anywhere in the Great Lakes water system. We need to realize the treasure that we have and preserve it for future generations.

It would be nice if they cut Oceana county out of it all together, maybe move the project up off the state park where land owners can't whine about it being infront of their property, and offer jobs involved with the project to Mason county residents, because we actually want more jobs in our county. And any community trust can help our school system/local economy. I want to hear all the info before I say "yes" or "no", Oceana county just wants to say "no". Plus we have a deep water port for shipping in the parts for them, and room in our indutrial parks for a manufacrting/assembly plant if parts can/or need to be manufactured locally. Structures out that far are going to use alot of raw materials that can easily be shipped into our port. Lets hear everything before making a decision(mason county government).

As a mason county resident I was wondering how much lower my electrical bills will be? When the wind mills are up and running of course. What??? Is that laughter I here comming from across the lake or is that just the wind?

Nice try, Harald. Take them outside of 6 miles, or take them somewhere else where the water depths are feasible for this technology. Save the Ludington grid connection for a company who will put floating platforms far enough off shore to preserve the viewshed and provide wind power. Havgul has the wrong technology for this location. If we accept the 4 miles and 100 turbines, they will likely move to the Clipper 10MW turbine (not the 5 mW turbines that have been in the simulations) and at 450 ft to the nacelle they will loom larger than the 5 mW at 3.5 miles. They are fishing--what is the path of least resistance here? We now know it isn't Oceana County, let's try Mason.

Aaron, the problem isn't that Oceana County just wants to say "no;" the problem is that Scandia/Havgul have either been unwilling or unable to answer the questions that Oceana County is asking. They've not done a complete analysis of the environmental impact nor have they done a complete analysis on the economic impact in the 2 counties. If they have, they haven't shared the details. As has been reported previously, they've never done this before. Do you really want to be the guineau pig? Too many unknowns. Bottom-line, if they want the windfarm so that they can sell electricity to Chicago, let the windfarm be located off the coast of Chicago and let them be the guineau pigs!

What do you mean they don't "deal in good faith"? They listened and have revised plans, and may do so again. Some people may never be pleased, but that doesn't mean the other side isn't dealing in good faith. NIMBY rules supreme in West Michigan (no surprise). NOTE: Should the acronym be changed to NIMFY for this discussion, most of the detractors would be thrilled to have the towers in their back yards, it's the front yard that's the issue here...

I wonder if Mason County residents have considered the following about job creation: 1. Scandia/Havgul will guarantee NO jobs. Not one. They hint at jobs, but they won't put their money behind their promises. They won't even guarantee 200 temporary local jobs during the construction phase - or 20 permanent local jobs for maintenance. When Walmart or Meijer builds a store, they PROMISE that a certain number of local jobs will be created. They also will not reimburse our community if we lose more tourism jobs than we gain manufacturing jobs. 2. Bremerhaven, Germany, held out as a model of industrial development that we can copy by Harald Dirdal, bears NO resemblance to Ludington. Bremerhaven has a population of 150,000, was a huge industrial port that had fallen on hard times, had a working harbor - not a recreational one - and was more like Detroit than Mason County. Fact is there are simply not enough people in our area (Ludington pop: less than 9,000)to support the wind industry - especially when Detroit area (with about 4 million people) has an unemployment rate of over 30%. This is not only misleading, it is cruel to pretend that having 200 wind turbines near our shores will cause huge manufacturers like Siemens, GE and Vesta to suddenly invest in our area.

It seems to me that if these windmills are economically viable 4 miles out in the lake,they would be economical at 10 miles.This would solve the "view" problem but there still might be concerns about bird and boat traffic.I agree that there appear to be way more questions than answers and that now is no time to be rushing a decision.

There is a possibility of being a blueprint, and establishing ourselves as pioneers in a new, clean source of energy, or we can simply be backwoods rednecks that just say no, not here, or even worse, be puppets of a bunch of rich out of towners that don't want their lake view ruined. Maybe when we get all the information we will decide it is not right for us, but if we don't wait for all the information, or we tell them we are not willing to negociate, we are not doing what is best for our community.

No. No. And No! Next question?

Aaron-with all due respect, a question: Which is it? are we "backwoods rednecks" or "rich out-of-towners"? Does anyone who loves lake michigan, owns a boat, likes to sail, fish on the big lake or watch a sunset fit into that category for you? I assure you i am neither. ( i might be a NIMBY though-- can't see anything wrong with taking care of your yard! lake michigan is america's backyard and has been for almost 100 years! ) I think you need to spend a little more time on the water before you start advocating privatizing it and giving it away to strangers. People from all over the country come here to enjoy the lake, and i expect most of them come here in part for "the view" they have while they are here. They also go to the grand canyon for "the view" The "view" belongs to everyone with a pair of eyes, regardless of where they live, whether they are there for the day, week or lifetime; whether they look at it from the deck of a big yacht or Michicraft canoe or a rowboat. And yes, "the view" will be ruined, but we will also be kicked out of our recreation area, the very place where we fish, sail, and just plain enjoy a day on the water. for what? to be "pioneers" in a pipe dream that will redistribute what wealth there is here to minnesota and norway and denmark. I'd rather be a pioneer in defending a great natural place that ALL people, "rich" or "redneck" (in your words) ( and every other stereotype you dream up) can enjoy, and be a little bit humbled by.