Nobody is saying that wind energy does not have a place--though if you do the research, you will find it is not the panacea you think. Be that as it may, if the decision is to put these up, that's fine. Just locate them where everyone's health and safety is adequately preserved.

Extra--Kudos to you for putting up a residential type wind turbine; I'm glad that has worked for you. But it is not appropriate to compare those to the industrial wind turbines being discussed in the article. For example--and this is just ONE example: I'll bet your residential turbine does not require a power draw from the grid to the tune of 12,000 volts/600 amps to wind it up when the wind starts to blow. That is what is required to start up the big ones. And there are OTHER environmentally friendly power sources that can be used to virtually eliminate any additional need for central power plants. Right now though, the tax dollars are being thrown at the wind plants--which is really the driving force behind the local rush to get these up--Once those incentives expire, you won't be seeing the rush by the wind companies to put these things where ever they can.

Look--there are legitimate issues on both sides. Until now, we've only heard from the companies that stand to make millions by putting these things up. Instead, let's do what Brett Davis suggests, and have a meaningful, fact-based analysis of the issue--like the Union Twsp. Committee has done. Peace...

babaloo1 – You see the bigger picture. I own a farm and see cities moving closer to me. I have seen Verona, Oregon, Fitchburg, …. chew up thousands of acres of land. Each of the thousands of houses built requires gas and electricity. This need is growing exponentially. When I was born there were 146 million people in the US – now there are over 300 million. With China and India people able to purchase affordable cars and energy demand high, we need to look at what direction we are moving. ( Only three of every thousand Chinese own a car today. But with 1.3 billion people consider how many cars and energy will be required. In 2008, ½ of the earths known oil resource had been burned. ) Should we hope someone else will solve our problem ? Think out another 20 to 50 years and imagine what our situation will be.

At one time I lived within the 10 mile radius of Byron – and downwind of the plant. Every month the warning sirens were tested. It made you think. Wind energy doesn’t need to test evacuation plans.

In 1981 I installed a small wind turbine and received government provided tax credits. My meter turned backward. I have converted almost all my lights to CFL’s and done everything reasonable to be energy efficient. What have others done ?

I think extraclass needs to understand that just because Large Turbines may not be suitable for the town of Union, based on scientific and peer reviewed research, there are many other locations throughout the Midwest and the country that would be acceptable. The items in our everyday lives come from all across the world. Everything has its place. A biomass plant would make sense in our area, but to be 100% safe and issue free, Large Turbines require lots of resident free area around them.
The town of Union is not the Dakotas. Citizens need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. We would all be much better off using less, instead of creating more. Go Crew!

In southern Wisconsin with all its urban sprawl, I would think this would effectively kill any hope of a clean energy option. Do we need to know what effects these wind turbines might have on our health and well being down the road? Of course-and it should come from un-biased studies. Then again, maybe we prefer to have another coal plant or another nuclear plant in our backyards. It gives me the creeps, when on clear days, I can see the Zion plant plumes from where we live. (Last I knew wind turbines weren't an especially hot terrorist target...) Maybe we should be addressing the fact that all our open land is being turned into yet another sub-division. It takes more and more energy to run all these new areas and with less and less open land that reduces our options for clean alternatives.

Mister professor:

Please state your facts with sources. Why am I wrong ?

And, I forget to mention that I also extend a tip o' the hat to Gina Duwe, of the Gazettee, who didn't just drop the story when she got the wind energy proponents' starry-eyed view of this energy alternative. Instead, she pursued the 'rest of the story', and gave readers who want to stay informed a real balanced view of both sides. Kudos, Gina!

Well, Dave....If you were right, I'd agree with you. Except you are doing exactly what the wind industry hopes: supporting the CONCEPT of wind energy, without deference to the facts. This committee gave that deference, as it should have. I, for one, applaud their work. It was both timely and professional. Check out what they've come up with.

This is another case of the exception becoming the rule. A few people eliminate opportunity for all. It’s time to listen to the many for the good of the many. In a state of high taxes and liberal mentality, someone finds a way to keep costs high and restrict the rights of many. To have a wind turbine you would need to own 1 square mile of property. (640 acres) and be lucky enough to have the most suitable wind site in the middle of the property. If this passes, wind ( a clean source that does not cut food supply or require energy to produce ) will be dead in Wisconsin. Thanks to the exception. Dave