I've said it before and I'll say it again - STOP ALL THIS FOOLISHNESS IN OUR LAKE! Commissioners, wake up and see what harmful potential this has. The job issue is a non issue. It will have no impact on the local jobless rate. Just the thought of something so ugly and noisy damaging our shoreline is unconscionable! Pentwater's squeaky wheel got some results. Where is our squeaky wheel This must be stopped!

I ran across this article during my research.It's from 2004.When reading, you will notice some familiar groups of today, who stand to benefit greatly from the wind factory industry at the tax payers expense...LEARN FROM HISTORY.. Read on....Knowledge from those who have "been there done that".... "A bigger, "renewable" boondoggle" December 15, 2004 In Washington, sometimes all you need to do to find out lobbyists' latest schemes to bilk the unwary taxpayer is attend a public meeting. What brings this to mind is Greenwire reporter Ben Geman's December 7 [2004] story recounting a recent Capitol Hill conference for journalists and congressional staff, sponsored by the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE). Geman's straight, just-the-facts-Ma'am reporting, by letting the lobbyists speak for themselves, quickly makes one thing apparent: The renewable-energy lobby is just another oinker, with its snout in the trough - a special interest group slavering after corporate welfare subsidies, special tax breaks, and market rigging rules. Geman begins by observing that: "Renewable energy advocates are launching a major effort to steer federal and state policies towards far greater utilization of renewable technologies, arguing that decades of research and development have generated mature technologies poised for wider adoption." Now, wait a minute. If those technologies are "mature" and "poised for wider adoption" - wind turbines, after all, have been around for centuries - then why is government intervention needed to ensure their "utilization?" If renewable energy technologies cannot succeed on their own despite "decades of research and development," why should we taxpayers be compelled to keep subsidizing them? According to an ACORE paper distributed prior to the conference: "It is time to declare an interim success on the 30-year, $14 billion investment in renewable energy technologies, and chart a new course for widespread utilization ("Phase II") of renewable energy in America." But, hold on again. When environmentalists enthuse about "renewable energy technologies," they refer chiefly to wind and solar power and biomass fuels, which together supply only 3 percent of all the electricity Americans use - with wind and solar providing less than two-tenths of one percent. If that is all 30 years and $14 billion have accomplished, then isn't it time declare failure, and abolish coerced taxpayer support for such techno-underachievers? Not according to the renewable energy industry luminaries Geman cites. Steve Zwolinski, president of GE Wind Energy, laments that U.S. policy lags behind that of Europe in growing the renewable energy sector: "U.S. policy is not conducive to developing the industry." Yes, and a good thing, too! In America, it is the job of industry to develop itself, not the job of government. What Zwolinski really wants is a government-guaranteed market share for wind-generated electricity, regardless of performance, cost, or efficiency. That may be the European way; it is not the American way. ACORE President Michael Eckhart advocates federal funding for state renewable energy programs, and repeal of the sunset provisions in the current crop of renewable energy tax breaks: "We want renewable energy to be in the tax code." What a noble agenda for the environmental movement! Hide the cost of uneconomic wind farms from local ratepayers (the inevitable effect of federal funding), and at the same time, further convolute a federal tax code already overloaded with special-interest preferences and loopholes. Jack Robinson, president of Winslow Management Company, a firm that specializes in "green" investing, said renewable energy has strong "grassroots" appeal, citing a recent ballot initiative establishing a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) - a law requiring the state's utilities to obtain 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Robinson opined that "if the federal government got on the bandwagon" by, for example, enacting longer-term renewable energy tax credits, then more states would adopt RPS programs. Of course, more RPS programs would mean more business for "green" firms manufacturing renewable energy technologies, more investment opportunities for Robinson's clients, and, thus, more commissions for Winslow Management Company. Sweet! Ken Bossong of the Sustainable Energy Coalition, apparently unsatisfied with just federal fiscal support, advocates a "federal renewable portfolio standard" to "spur greater commercialization" of renewable energy. History suggests, however, that even a federal RPS would fail to commercialize these politically correct technologies. As MIT's Thomas Lee, Ben Ball, Jr., and Richard Tabors caution in their book, Energy Aftermath: How We Can Learn From the Blunders of the Past to Create a Hopeful Energy Future (p. 167): "The experience of the 1970s and 1980s taught us, that if a technology is commercially viable, then government support is not needed, and if a technology is not commercially viable, no amount of government support will make it so." I ask you...Does this sound familiar or what??? Wake the heck up people!!!

Just say no. Not only will this worthwhile, noble effort cost us all the public (federal, state, and local) monies in subsidies to build and sustain and make it almost viable, it will cost us in lost tourism capital and loss of a large patch of our offshore acreage to a hastily thought out project that has proved to be less than ideal in its claims over the past. To the wind power companies: show us why this is a good investment-- don't bore us with pie-in-the-sky idealism and neglect to tell us all the details.

please people stop using energy so we dont need oil wells and wind mills and nukes and coal plants and well walk to work and heat your house with cow pies.....you hypocrites

On a very related note, check out MSNBC.com for headline 'U.S. Approves Cape Cod Wind Farm'. Very interesting read for all those concerned about this project. After 9 years, the government approved the project to put 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound. Turbines would be five miles from shore at the closest.

It is my understanding that due to security concerns, boats would have to keep a minimum of 1000 feet away from the water based widmills. This would effectively close public access to a huge portion of Lake Michigan!

Some of the Southern coastal states are also facing these decisions on wind farms. Fl. and SC have both stated any wind farms be built a minimum of 25 miles offshore. That being a boundary line of state land that the people of the state have the say-so on such projects. I would think this would likewise apply to Michigan. Keep in mind though, that is our shipping lanes for lower-lakers, and that too, needs protection for our economic interests of the future. It's plain to see what the people of Michigan want and have stated, the answer to lake wind farms is NO! Not now, not ever, find another place to build and promote an energy system that does not produce what it promises. And bilks the Federal and State treasuries. Nice research guys, keep up the good work Protia.

The first German offshore windfarm (Alpha Ventus) went online this week. It is > 25 miles offshore in 100' water. The developers have stated it would have been foolish to put it within site of land and near migratory bird flyways. As Don notes for Cape Wind, in the case of Alpha Ventus, a buffer zone has been established around the windfarm. The Alpha Ventus perimeter is patrolled by boat night and day. Havgul cannot guarantee that the same will not happen here. Homeland Security or the Coast Guard could make Aegir an exclusion zone to navigation for security or safety reasons. There goes 100 sq miles of Lake Michigan from the "public trust".

Fredrick, there is nothing hypocritical about it. We know we need power. I don't see anyone on here saying they don't want oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric, or nuclear power ( I support all of these.) We just don't want our shoreline littered with obtrusive and inefficient wind turbines. You will never see a wind turbine project that isn't heavily subsidized on the federal and state levels. They are not cost effective and will not pay for themselves over their lifespan without assistance. That assistance comes out our pockets. One nuclear plant puts out more power than 1,000 wind turbines. Even an antiquated coal plant puts out more than 400 turbines.

Frederick; you sound like someone who works for the wind farm company. Hypocrites, eh. Not on your life! When something is not proven, will impact so many things in "our" water, is unsightly, won't provide local jobs, bankrupts our state, etc, etc,.... that is hardly hypocritical! I hope the "powers that are" have an ear to these discussions and act responsibly when the people have spoken about their wishes on this unpopular idea!