Press Release Source: Wisconsin Energy Corporation
Wednesday December 20, 6:00 am ET
Customers will continue to receive low-cost electricity from the
plant


MILWAUKEE, Dec. 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Wisconsin Energy
Corporation (NYSE: WEC - News) announced today that its subsidiary,
Wisconsin Electric Power Co., doing business as We Energies, has
reached a definitive agreement to sell its Point Beach Nuclear Plant
to FPL Energy, a subsidiary of FPL Group, Inc. (NYSE: FPL - News).
Point Beach is a 1,033-megawatt facility located in Two Rivers,
Wisconsin. The first unit at Point Beach went into commercial service
in 1970 and is licensed to operate until 2030. The second unit was
brought on line in 1973 and is licensed to operate until 2033.

FPL Energy will purchase the plant, its nuclear fuel and associated
inventories for approximately $1 billion, and enter into a long-term
agreement under which FPL Energy will sell 100 percent of the output
of Point Beach to We Energies.

The transaction is expected to close in August 2007.

Under the agreement, the cost per kilowatt-hour for We Energies'
customers is below the projected cost of power had We Energies
continued to own and operate the plant. The term of the agreement is
for the expected remaining life of each unit at the plant.

As part of the transaction, FPL Energy will offer employment to all
current employees at the plant. In addition, FPL Energy will be
responsible for the ultimate decommissioning of the facility and the
cost of that decommissioning.

After closing the transaction, We Energies also will receive
approximately $300 million from a trust fund that had been
established to pay for the decommissioning of the plant.

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin will determine how the net
proceeds from the sale will be used to benefit customers.

Upon closing, FPL Energy will assume management and operation of the
plant from Nuclear Management Company (NMC) and will work with NMC to
ensure a smooth transition. NMC has managed the plant since 2000.

In February 2006, Wisconsin Energy announced its intent to conduct a
formal review of options for the future ownership and operation of
Point Beach. Several options to preserve the benefits of Point Beach
were considered, including continued operation of the plant by NMC,
operation by a third-party operator other than NMC, a return to in-
house operation of the plant by We Energies, or the partial or
complete sale of the plant with a long-term energy agreement.

"We had no pre-determined outcome when we began the review of our
options for Point Beach," said Gale E. Klappa, chairman, president
and chief executive officer of Wisconsin Energy. "Our goal was to
identify the best outcome for our customers and stockholders and to
protect a valuable energy resource for Wisconsin. I believe we have
achieved that goal."

"FPL Group's Nuclear Division has an excellent track record operating
nuclear plants safely and reliably," said Art Stall, senior vice
president of FPL Group's Nuclear Division. "FPL Group and Point Beach
nuclear programs are focused on safety and continuous improvement. We
look forward to working with Point Beach employees in further
providing safe, clean and reliable nuclear power to the Wisconsin
market for many years to come."

FPL Energy and its parent company, FPL Group, operate nuclear plants
in Florida, Iowa and New England. In addition, FPL Energy is the
largest wind energy producer in the United States, owning and
operating 47 wind energy facilities, including the Montfort Wind
Energy Center in Montfort, Wisconsin.

The company also announced today that FPL Energy has provided two
wind options for We Energies. The first allows We Energies to select
FPL Energy to equip and construct the We Energies Blue Sky Green
Field Wind Project in northeastern Fond du Lac County. This project
is currently under regulatory review. The second option allows We
Energies to acquire a site under development by FPL Energy in central
Wisconsin. We Energies may exercise either of these options
independent of the sale of the Point Beach facility.

The sale to FPL Energy is subject to review and approval by various
regulatory agencies, including the Public Service Commission of
Wisconsin, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as review by the U.S.
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.

Conference Call

Wisconsin Energy has scheduled a conference call at 1 p.m. Central
time today to discuss the proposed sale of its Point Beach Nuclear
Plant to FPL Energy. The company also intends to discuss earnings
guidance for 2007.

To listen to the presentation:

Dial 877-502-9274 up to 15 minutes before 1 p.m. Central time on
Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2006. International callers, please dial 913-981-
5584. The confirmation code for the call is 9236741.

A replay of the audio portion of the presentation will be available
until Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2006, at 888-203-1112. International
callers, please dial 719-457-0820. The replay confirmation code is
9236741.

Analysts with questions or comments should contact Colleen Henderson,
manager of strategic planning and investor relations, Wisconsin
Energy, at 414-221-2592.

Wisconsin Energy Corporation (NYSE: WEC - News), based in Milwaukee,
is one of the nation's premier energy companies, serving more than
1.1 million electric customers in Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper
Peninsula and more than 1 million natural gas customers in Wisconsin.
The company's principal utilities are We Energies and Edison Sault
Electric. The company's non-utility businesses include renewable
energy technology and real estate development.

Wisconsin Energy Corporation (http://www.wisconsinenergy.com) has
more than $10 billion of assets, 5,300 employees and approximately
56,000 stockholders of record.

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The
forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and
uncertainties. Forward-looking statements may be identified by
reference to a future period or periods or by the use of forward-
looking terminology such
as "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "expects," "forecasts," "in
tends," "may," "objectives," "plans," "possible," "projects," or
similar terms or variations of these terms.

Actual results may vary materially from those set forth in forward-
looking statements as a result of factors described in Wisconsin
Energy's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 and in
subsequent reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any
forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information,
future events or otherwise.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Source: Wisconsin Energy Corporation

Posted on 12/19/2006 9:00:49 PM PST by jdm


Massachusetts' highest court has upheld a decision facilitating
construction of an environmentally friendly "wind farm" that Sen. Ted
Kennedy had opposed.

The decision on Monday allows construction of 18-mile-long
transmission lines to bring electricity from the Cape Wind project –
a collection of energy-producing wind turbines – to shore.

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a May 2005 decision by the state
Energy Facilities Siting Board that was challenged by a group
opposing the Cape Wind project, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.

If it receives needed federal approval, Cape Wind would become the
nation's first offshore wind farm.

The developer seeks to construct two 115-kilovolt lines to transmit
electricity generated by 130 wind turbines in federal waters in
Nantucket Sound. The lines would pass beneath state waters before
reaching shore at Yarmouth and continuing underground to a switching
station in Barnstable.

Cape Wind touts its project as a safe, clean way to create renewable
energy.

Kennedy had lobbied for a provision giving Gov. Mitt Romney veto
power over the Cape Wind project.

In his book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal
Hypocrisy," author Peter Schweizer disclosed that Kennedy opposed the
Cape Wind project because "the wind turbines would be built in
Nantucket Sound, about six miles off the coast from the Kennedy
compound in Hyannis.

"The problem was not aesthetic; the Kennedys wouldn't be able to
actually see the turbines from their home. Instead Robert Kennedy
Jr., who had been beating the drum for alternative sources of energy
for more than a decade, complained that the project would be built in
one of the family's favorite sailing and yachting areas."

As NewsMax reported in May, Kennedy supported a proposal to build
another wind farm – in somebody else's "backyard."

A Boston contractor submitted plans to construct an offshore complex
of 90 to 120 wind turbine towers near Naushon Island and the towns of
Dartmouth and Fairhaven.

While the Cape Wind project Kennedy opposed would be "in view of some
of the wealthiest communities in Massachusetts' Cape Cod," according
to CNN and Reuters, the other proposal was for a "project in view of
more working-class areas."



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US:
Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: BLOWHARDS; CAPEWIND; ENVIRONMENT; KENNEDY; WINDFARM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

I thought the comments by the opposed folks were interesting in this
article.
From the Baltimore Sun

Wind farm may rise off Delaware shore



By Tom Pelton
Sun reporter

December 20, 2006





A New Jersey company is proposing to build about 200 wind turbines,
each taller than the Statue of Liberty, in the Atlantic Ocean or
Delaware Bay that would whirl within view of some of the region's
most popular beaches.

Officials with Bluewater Wind of Hoboken hope their $1 billion
offshore wind farm will be the first in U.S. waters.

Similar proposals are pending for wind farms off Cape Cod, Mass., and
Long Island, N.Y., but they have drawn protests and lawsuits from
homeowners who say their water views would be defiled by the towers.

In Delaware, the proposal has met with mixed reaction, with some
people enthusiastic about the alternative energy source and others
worried that the sight of the large turbines would disrupt the
tourism industry in Bethany Beach or Rehoboth Beach.

"We will be offering offshore energy sources that will be pollution-
free, emission-free and the price of fuel will be free, since it's
the wind," said Jim Lanard, director of strategic planning for
Bluewater.

The company plans to submit a proposal by Friday to Delmarva Power &
Light to build the windmills in one of three locations: 10 miles east
of Rehoboth Beach; seven miles east of Bethany Beach; or five miles
northeast of Slaughter Beach, Lanard said.

The distance from shore would be far enough that the turbines would
appear no more than half a thumbnail high if someone on the beach
extended an arm and looked along it out to sea, Lanard said.

Delmarva Power & Light will study the proposal, along with other
options for power generation, and decide which if any of the offshore
sites the utility will recommend to the Delaware Public Service
Commission, said Tim Brown, a spokesman for Delmarva Power.

The plans would then require the approval of several Delaware state
agencies and the federal Department of the Interior.

John Schafler, manager of the 10,000-acre Prime Hook National
Wildlife Refuge, which stretches along the shore between two of the
proposed sites, said he strongly opposes the turbines.

Schafler said the wind turbines would disrupt a key habitat for
horseshoe crabs and migrating birds such as the red knot, a
threatened species.

"They're ugly," Schafler said of turbines, which he has seen in
California. "I'm not a big fan of wind power, because of the
industrial look, the bird-kill issues, the horseshoe crab disturbance
issues."

Patti Shreeve, an artist and member of the Rehoboth Beach Board of
Commissioners, said she likes the idea of clean energy, but is
concerned about ruining views from the beach.

"I'm entirely for environmentally sound sources of energy, but I am
concerned about the view," she said. "There are also many species of
birds that migrate along the coast from Canada to South America ...
and that raises many questions for me."

Nicolette Nye, a spokeswoman for the Department of the Interior's
Mineral Management Service, said that consideration of Bluewater's
project will have to wait until the agency writes rules on
construction of offshore wind farms. That could take until September,
she said.

"We have a moratorium on reviewing any applications for any future
renewable [energy] sites until we have new regulations in place," Nye
said.

More than 5,000 wind turbines across the United States generate less
than 1 percent of the nation's energy supply. But more are being
constructed all the time - about 1,200 were built last year, many in
the Midwest - because they generate electricity without spewing
pollution or global warming gases, said Christine Real de Azua, a
spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association.

No offshore wind farms have been built in U.S. waters, but several
are generating power in Europe, she said.

"We have really reached a turning point where wind is really a
mainstream source of new power generation," she said. "It provides
electricity at a stable price. And from the environmental point of
view, it's a zero-emission form of electricity."

Maryland has approved three wind farms in its mountainous west, but
none has been built. A proposal about seven years ago to build wind
turbines off Ocean City was withdrawn when residents expressed
concerns about ruining the Atlantic view.

It is unclear whether wind turbines off Bethany Beach could be seen
from Ocean City, Lanard said. "They would look really, really small
if they were visible," the Bluewater spokesman said.

Ocean City Mayor Rick Meehan said yesterday that he hadn't heard the
new proposal but doubted that a wind farm would bother people on the
beach.

"It doesn't appear to me that they will be visual pollution," Meehan
said. "You'll see them, but they won't negate the ambience of being
at the beach."

Strong opposition has flared in Massachusetts to a proposal to build
130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, including from environmentalist
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose family owns a summer home on Cape Cod.

"A number of the homeowners are concerned about the changes - not
only visually, but that a 24-square-mile area of Nantucket Sound will
become an industrial project," said Charles Vinick, president of the
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.

Bluewater is also studying the possibility of building turbines in
the ocean off New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island, and does not
believe that they would disturb birds, boaters or beachcombers,
Lanard said.

Bluewater Wind is owned by Arcadia Wind, which in 2004 built a wind
farm in Judith Gap, Mont.



tom.pelton@...
Copyright © 2006, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery

> Get news on your mobile device at www.baltimoresun.com

Howdy Bob, I am happy to see someone posting, I was just thinking
today about how disappointed i was that of the hundred something
people in the WWG that only a small few joined here. I started this
group because as a little guy/girl I was getting the run around from
the big guy's and as i attended a few conferences and WWG meetings
things all seemed to be TOP SECRET and if I would ask someone on the
side a question it was briefly answered or they did not have time to
answer at all. with the exception of John sarver and tom stanton who
gave me ample time and answers. At the beginning of the meetings
people would introduce them selves example Jane doe with big time
company, I always felt out of place saying Tammy Stoner a commoner
just trying to self educate. I think what the big time company's and
most organizations are forgetting is the little people will be the
end user of what they are trying to create and regulate. And as these
townships try to establish regulation as they should be entitled to
do on there own, it is the little people attending these meetings
with no positive knowledge or understanding to form a well rounded
decision on, what the non believing little people have set in there
mind is wind turbines are noisy and kill birds. The vast majority of
these people have never seen a large or small scale turbine other
than in pictures but will tell you from a 4x6 photo they are
unattractive and they don't want to look at them. I can only hope
that more little people will find this group. Whether for and against
renewable energy and become more knowledgeable to faster and smoother
enhance there own small project or if against renewables take from
this group that what they have heard from others at the local coffee
shop was just a myth. I have two years of trying to learn enough to
power a home my husband and i are soon building and although
financially ready to build lack the needed knowledge of where and how
to get started, More builders are getting involved in building earth
friendly energy efficient homes and i am pleased to see this. In
addition you yourself are on the cutting edge of a great job future
wanting to install wind turbines, as i found out the hard way tower
erection company's are on communications gold rush of there own and
they can rig on a tower all the dishes or antennas you could want for
communication purpose but ask them about installing a turbine on a
tower and most will say oh we don't do that , we don't have the
experience or the knowledge and by the way you are a little guy and
we only do million dollar jobs for large corporations. Large
investors see renewables for what is is a good investment that you
put millions up front for and get 100% payoff  in 10 - 15 years after
equipment pays for its self, most energy providers see it as a pain
in there butt because they can never reach 100% profit because they
will always have to pay someone for the watts, And the don't want it
in there back yard little people see it as I am not gonna pay any
less for electricity so why should i care. I see it as an investment
in our retirement plan while saving the earths atmosphere. I will
stop here as i only share what is my opinion based on what i have
learned so far. When i learn something different i will gladly post
my opinion has changed from what i have stated now. Welcome aboard
Bob and any one else who would read this, Please feel free to express
your opinions, share your experience's ask questions or give answers
about renewable energy as i have, and thank you for sticking out the
slow growth of this group, I guess it resembles reality of the pace
at which renewable energy acceptance and use is growing  "real slow"
LOL Tammy Stoner P.S. It is ok to disagree with me. Still laughing
Tammy.

Thanks for all the news, Tammy.  This is great!  We need a place for
the little guys.

Bob


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Renewable Energy: How It Will Happen
Jeff Deyette
December 19, 2006
Jeff Deyette is a clean energy analyst at the Union of Concerned
Scientists.

Overshadowed by the national midterm election results was news of
actions in two states that have created new opportunities for moving
toward energy independence while advancing a smart and affordable
solution in the fight against global warming.

In Washington, voters turned out in strong numbers to adopt a
renewable electricity standard, a requirement that electric utilities
gradually increase their use of renewable energy sources such as
wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. Under the initiative, the
state's largest utilities are required to furnish 15 percent of their
electric power from renewable sources by 2020. In addition, the
initiative requires Washington utilities to pursue low-cost energy
conservation opportunities with their customers. Washington is the
21st state, plus the District of Columbia, to adopt a renewable
standard. It's the ninth state to do so in just the last two years,
and the second via a ballot initiative.

One week prior to the election, power regulators in Arizona opted to
boost that state's existing renewable standard to 15 percent by 2025,
up from the more modest previous requirement of 1.1 percent by 2007.
Arizona is the ninth state to increase or accelerate its existing
renewable standard since 2004, demonstrating the effectiveness and
popularity of the policy.

Both of these victories are further evidence of the growing number of
states that are taking the lead in building long-term markets for
clean energy technologies, which is a significant step forward in
reducing power plant production of carbon dioxide (CO2). Power plants
are the leading U.S. source of CO2, the heat-trapping gas primarily
responsible for global warming. According to the Union of Concerned
Scientists, the new policies in Washington and Arizona will cut 12.2
million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually by 2025—equivalent to
taking nearly 1.9 million cars off the road. Altogether state
standards will eliminate the equivalent of 14 million cars.

These examples of state leadership are creating a growing momentum
for action on renewable energy in Congress. At least four new
Democratic Senate members and more than 15 of the new members in the
House have indicated their support for measures that would encourage
the use of more renewable energy. The new chairman of the Senate
Energy Committee, Senator Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., has championed a
federal standard that has passed the Senate three times. He has vowed
to bring the measure before that body early in the new legislative
session. On the House side, Speaker-elect Pelosi, D-Calif., has
indicated that she will move within the first 100 days of the new
Congress to eliminate some tax breaks for big oil companies and apply
that money to programs to encourage the development of renewable
energy. With these indicators, new incentives for renewable energy
are seen as having the best chance of passage in over a dozen
years.

A 2004 Union of Concerned Scientists analysis found that a national
renewable standard—20 percent by 2020—would save consumers $49
billion, while slashing the projected growth in power plant CO2
emissions by more than half. It would also create 157,500 more jobs
than the business-as-usual fossil fuel future and provide new income
for struggling rural communities.

With only five percent of the world's population, the United States
produces nearly 25 percent of annual global heat-trapping emissions.
We have a responsibility and a compelling interest to significantly
reduce these harmful emissions. Renewable electricity standards offer
a smart, affordable climate solution with a proven track record. The
states are laying the foundation, and it's time for Congress to
follow their lead.

--- In Michiganwindforalternativeenergy@yahoogroups.com, "Tammy"
<flattop379@...> wrote:
>
>  Demo highlights solar energy
>
>
I've seen these shingles before at GLREA.  They seem sturdy (you can
walk on them).  There are lots of holes to drill for the wires; which
would be ok for new construction, but tough to install when working in
a small attic.  Maybe they now have a way to connect them so there are
not wires for each shingle poking through the roof deck.  Great
technology right at home in Michigan!

Demo highlights solar energy


Of The Oakland Press
The Automation Alley Technology Center in Troy is letting the sun
shine in - with help from United Solar Ovonic.
The center is using a bank of photovoltaic solar roof shingles
manufactured by the Auburn Hills company to fill some of its energy
needs.

"It's a demonstration project funded by the Michigan Public Service
Commission to really test out and showcase alternative energy
technology here in Michigan," said Tom Anderson, senior director of
the technology center. "What we did was to install a solar panel
array using the solar shingles United Solar makes."

The system can generate 30 kilowatts of electricity, about 20 percent
of the building's daily demand, said Anderson.

"For new construction it's particularly attractive because it can
serve not only as the final roofing material, but it can generate
electricity."

Of the 30 kilowatts, 26 are tied to the power grid, two are used as
direct current to run the building's lights and the remaining two
serve as battery backup for the building's servers,
telecommunications and audio-visual controls.

"The energy monitor display is right by one of our front doors so
people pass by that all the time," said Anderson. "The project is
part of a larger effort by the PSC to evaluate alternative energy
approaches. Some grants they funded for wind power, some for solar
power."

The technology center received $550,000 in Michigan Energy Efficiency
Grant funds. The money is part of $6 million being distributed in
southeast Michigan to promote energy effi ciency.

The solar shingles comprise about 11,000 square feet, both on the
flat roof of the building and as a tilted array.

"United Solar has strong sales of this material in Europe," said
Anderson. "It hasn't hit the market as much in Michigan and the U.S.
We want to make it a little more visible and show our members what
kind of contribution it could make to their overall energy costs."

Engineers forecast the system will generate about 42,500 kilowatts of
electricity over the course of a year.

The power generated by the system reduces the electricity the
building draws from the power grid. If it produces more power than
the building consumes, the excess electricity goes back to the grid,
which further reduces utility bills.

"When it's dark we use power that comes into the building," said
Anderson. "When the power is interrupted, we draw power out of the
battery pack here.

"It won't run the entire building, but it runs a subset of the
building. It's kind of like having one of those automatic generators
at home."

In the event of a power failure, the solar array "could run the
lights, we could run the servers for our computer system," said
Anderson.

United Solar, he said, has shifted from being focused on research and
development to manufacturing products.

"It's a good thing for Oakland County, it's a good thing for the
business," he said. "They have been developing really innovative
cutting edge stuff for a number of years."

In addition to United Solar, other companies assisting with the
project are Cobasys in Orion Township, a manufacturer of nickel
hydride batteries and also an Automation Alley member; NexTec Power
Systems of Detroit; and SUR Energy Systems of Ann Arbor.

One in a series

Today's look at the Automation Alley solar project is an installment
in The Oakland Press' occasional series on Automation Alley, the
region's high tech consortium. This series takes a look at the many
facets of the Alley, its members and the outreach it is doing to
transform the region into a high tech corridor comparable to any in
the country.
Click here to return to story:
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/121306/bus_2006121327.shtml

Customers can choose to go green
Posted on : Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:44:00 GMT | Author : Energy News
Editor
News Category : Environment

New ( News Alerts by Email click here )


DETROIT, Dec. 18 Detroit-based DTE Energy Co. announced Monday it
will start offering renewable energy options to its customers.

In its new plan, 2.2 million electric customers will get to choose if
they want to use renewable energy for all or a portion of their
electricity needs.


Currently, renewable energy facilities are more costly to build,
operate and maintain than conventional sources of electricity. But we
expect costs to decrease over time as customer demand grows and more
and more renewable energy facilities are brought online, said Trevor
Lauer, vice president of retail marketing for the Michigan-based DTE
Energy. Customers will have to pay $2.50 a month for every 100
kilowatt-hours of renewable energy. That amount is about equal to
between 15 and 20 percent of monthly average home use. For an extra
$10 to $15 per month, customers can have all of their energy needs
met with renewable resources.

The program, called GreenCurrents, is completely voluntary and the
energy choices include solar, wind, hydropower and biomass among
others.

The project proposal, under development for the last year, is pending
approval from the Michigan Public Service Commission. If it's
approved, DTE Energy hopes to begin offering the new energy choices
by the beginning of 2007.


Copyright 2006 by UPI

ENERGY
Wind farm appeal waits on judge
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
BY JOHN BEAUGE
For The Patriot-News
A Lycoming County judge has lots of reading to do before she decides
whether a $100 million wind farm should be allowed on a ridge.

Judge Nancy L. Butts said yesterday she plans to read the 26 volumes
of transcripts from the 16 months of hearings conducted by the county
zoning hearing board before deciding an appeal by Laurel Hill Wind
Energy.

The Rutland, Vt., company wants to install 35 turbines in Jackson and
McIntyre townships. It is appealing the 3-2 decision by the zoning
board that denied the special exception needed to build the wind
farm.

The state advocates development of alternative energy, said Thomas C.
Marshall, who represents Laurel Hill. He argued that it would not
cause significant damage to the area or wildlife and that there is no
evidence the turbines will violate a noise ordinance.

Zoning board solicitor Karl K. Baldys said the massive project would
leave a big footprint in an area zoned for minimum development.

In its June 14 opinion, the zoning board's concerns included changes
to wildlife habitat, noise from the turbines and potential damage to
cold-water fisheries.

If the townships and county want wind farms, they should amend
ordinances to permit them, he said.

The county planning commission has not taken a position on the
project other than making recommendations to make it consistent with
the comprehensive plan. However, its solicitor, Charles F. Greevy
III, told Butts the area is not pristine forest and is not
appropriate for a scenic designation.

Laurel Hill, formed by Catamount Energy Corp. of Rutland, Vt., and
Marubeni Power International Inc. of New York, plans to lease 706
acres for its project.

Catamount has other wind farm developments in the western United
States, including Texas, and the United Kingdom.




©2006 The Patriot-News
© 2006 PennLive.com All Rights Reserved.

Full Article Here  (I hope)
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46867

BBC NEWS Report

Offshore wind farms get go-ahead
The green light has been given for two offshore wind farms in the
Thames Estuary, one of which will be the world's biggest when it is
completed.
The government said the schemes would produce enough renewable
electricity to power about one million households.

The larger London Array project covers 90 sq miles (232 sq km)
between Margate in Kent and Clacton, Essex.

The second wind farm, called the Thanet scheme, will cover 13.5 sq
miles (35 sq km) off the north Kent coast.

The £1.5bn London Array scheme will have 341 turbines rising from the
sea about 12 miles (20km) off the Kent and Essex coasts, as well as
five offshore substations and four meteorological masts.

The consortium behind it is made up of Shell WindEnergy Ltd, E.ON UK
Renewables and Core Ltd.

Climate change

The smaller £450m Thanet project will be located seven miles (11km)
out from North Foreland, Kent, and will have 100 turbines.


  HAVE YOUR SAY
We should be building more windfarms. We need to reduce our
dependency on imported fossil fuels
Ernst Schrodinger, Hampshire


Developed by Warwick Energy, it could be supplying electricity to
about 240,000 homes by 2008.
The government said both schemes would make "a significant
contribution to the aim of a five-fold increase in the UK's renewable
energy resource by 2020".

Friends of the Earth said about 1% of electricity used in the UK
would come from the London Array turbines.

Spokesman Martin Williams said: "It really is a big wind farm, but
when you look at the scale of the challenge of climate change, we're
going to need to do an awful lot more than just this one offshore
wind farm."

And the RSPB backed the London Array scheme after plans were amended
to prevent harm to red-throated divers - a bird rarely seen in UK
waters.

The charity said 7,000 of the birds were found off north east Kent
between 2002 and 2005, a larger population than thought, and so
developers reduced the number of first phase turbines.

Dr Mark Avery, conservation director at the RSPB, said: "We are very
pleased that this wind farm is to be built. Renewable energy
generation is crucial to tackling climate change."

New jobs

London Array Ltd also wants to build an onshore electricity
substation at Cleve Hill, Graveney, but planning permission was
refused by Swale Borough Council.

The consortium is appealing, saying it has changed its plans
following residents' concerns over construction traffic, and a
planning inspector is due to make a ruling in early March.

The Thanet scheme will provide major economic benefits for the town
of Ramsgate.

Thanet District Council said 800 new jobs were expected during the
three-year construction period, with another 100 when Ramsgate
becomes the maintenance base for the wind farm.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/6188133.stm

Published: 2006/12/18 15:50:57 GMT

© BBC MMVI

--- In Michiganwindforalternativeenergy@yahoogroups.com, "Tammy"
<flattop379@...> wrote:
>
> Howdy all, I received an interesting email from a well decorated 30
> year promoter of renewable energies last night and i would like to
> present a topic of discussion. >


I respect the concept.  Why don't we come up with a new term to
mystify big oil?  One thing is for certain, when people see their
electric bills double, they won't care what ARE is called!

--- In Michiganwindforalternativeenergy@yahoogroups.com, "Tammy"
<flattop379@...> wrote:
>
> Howdy all, I received an interesting email from a well decorated 30
> year promoter of renewable energies last night and i would like to
> present a topic of discussion. First i must say I highly admire
this
> mans contributions to promoting alternative energies in Michigan.
It
> started as I emailed him about this group hoping he would drop in
> occasionally for updates or assistance in question answering. I
have
> always used the terminology alternative energy for no reason other
> than that is how i heard it when I started seeking out new sources
of
> energy. The following is an excerpt from one of his replies to my
> email;
>
> I don't use the term "alternative energy" so I would like it if you
> change the name to "renewable energy".  Alternative energy is what
I
> call energy racism.  The fossil-nuke folks like it because it keep
> those of us pushing for the Solar Economy looking like backwoods
> hippies…   Internationally, you never see use of the
> term "alternative energy".  We are not the alternative, we are the
> MAIN source, always was, always will be soon.
>
> As I thought about this I believe that i agree with his reasoning
for
> the dislike of the word alternative. As I was researching
Information
> today for a regulations project I am working on I did notice that
no
> Government agency's I researched used the term alternative. Then
when
> I went to search for current news articles they steered more toward
> the term alternative than renewable. It is to late to change the
name
> of the group but it's never to late to change my choice of words.
Any
> opinions on this? I am going to create a poll out of curiosity to
see
> which word the majority uses. Tammy Stoner
>

Recurring Reminder: Doing Business with Michigan Wind for Alternative Energy
Members.

This group is made up of folks interested in renewable energies and was created 
to bring those people together. May it be to share information, create a
project, do business with, or what ever Please Remember, just because you’ve met
someone on Michigan Wind for Alternative Energy you should not
immediately assume they are who they say they are. Before you enter into an
arrangement with someone you've met here, investigate them thoroughly.
Membership on Michigan Wind for Alternative Energy group is not to be construed
as an endorsement of that member’s competence or honesty. News, Messages,
anouncements and or endorsements posted by members are not verified for
accuracy.

Tammy Stoner
List Owner: Michigan Wind for Alternative Energy

House Bill 4647 sponsored by Rep. John Moolenaar passed the Michigan
Senate on Dec. 14.
The bill would amend the Single Business Tax Act to provide taxpayers
that own and use a wind turbine with a credit against the tax.  The
credit would be equal to one-and-one-half cents per kilowatt hour
generated in the tax year.  The credit would be available for tax years
beginning after December 31, 2006 and before January 1, 2008. Thanks
John for this info, Tammy

in News Departments > New & Noteworthy
by NAW Staff on Friday 15 December 2006
Eighty members of the U.S. House of Representatives recently sent
President Bush a letter seeking substantially higher funding for
renewable energy and energy efficiency in the White House's fiscal
2008 budget request for the U.S. Department of Energy.

The letter calls for full funding of wind and solar programs, the
advanced hydropower and geothermal power programs, biomass/biofuels,
as well as efficiency programs for buildings and vehicles. In
addition, members of the House urged the administration to "develop a
request that fully funds the renewable energy and energy efficiency
programs in the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies
at the levels authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005."

Circulated by representatives Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Zach Wamp, R-
Tenn., the letter notes that "renewable energy and energy efficiency
can have the most immediate and longest lasting positive effect on
energy availability, stable prices and greenhouse gas emissions."

DOE Sees Boom in Green Energy


By Richard Martin, 12-15-06

For the last three decades the primary fact of the renewable energy
business has been that reality, unfortunately, never lived up to
predictions. That may soon change, according to the U.S. Department
of Energy.

In its 2007 "Annual Energy Outlook," the DOE's Energy Information
Administration, the primary source of government data and forecasts
on energy production and use in this country, says that consumption
of green fuels by 2012 in the United States will "far exceed" the
goal of 7.5 billion gallons set by Congress. Ethanol use alone will
grow from 4 billion gallons in 2005 to 11.2 billion gallons in 2012,
reaching 14.6 billion gallons in 2030 -- 8 percent of projected total
gasoline consumption by volume. Along with more burning of biofuels
(ethanol and biodiesel), the EIA also predicts growth in nuclear
power generation, expansion of coal-to-liquids technologies, rising
demand for environmentally benign transportation technologies, and
higher energy efficiency.

The bad news? Despite all these trends, barring dramatic change in
laws and regulations, oil, coal and natural gas are still predicted
to provide about 86 percent of total U.S. energy consumption in 2030 -
- the same fraction as in 2005. And carbon emissions from those
fossil fuels will continue to grow at about 1.2 percent a year.

In other energy news:

-- A long-awaited milestone in solar-energy technology has finally
been reached: Using "multi-junction cells," which generate more power
by capturing more of the solar spectrum, scientists at Boeing-
Spectrolab, working with funding from the DOE, have finally reached a
conversion efficiency of better than 40 percent. The
commercialization of the cells could lower the price of solar energy
to a level competitive with conventional production methods,
according to experts. Most current solar panels have efficiencies in
the 12 percent to 18 percent range.

-- The Intermountain Rural Electric Association, which has made no
secret of its opposition to renewable forms of energy, has grudgingly
agreed to allow its members to buy renewable-energy credits. While
the IREA, whose directors earlier this year voted to give $100,000 to
a Virginia scientist who claims that global warming is not caused by
emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, will not shift
its own production away from coal-burning power plants, members will
be able to pay an extra $5 monthly to support the production of wind
and solar energy by other utilities.

-- Aiming to make Denver the "balanced-energy capital of the West,"
the Colorado Energy Coalition is launching a marketing campaign to
portray the Centennial State as the nation's R&D and business nexus
for renewable energy development and energy conservation. Formed by
the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp., the CEC is expected to
take a leading role in the renewable-energy efforts promised by Gov.-
elect Bill Ritter.

Thursday, December 14, 2006
Judge Dismisses Altamont Pass Wind Turbine Lawsuit

A judge in Alameda County California has dismissed a lawsuit against
owners of the wind turbines located in the Altamont Pass. The lawsuit
made waves in the renewable energy community back in 2004 when it was
originally filed because of the novel claims alleged by the
plaintiffs. The new decision resolves a number of lingering issues
related to the ability of private individuals to bring claims under
state environmental laws.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a complaint against
owners of the wind turbines located in the Pass in November, 2004.
Altamont Pass, which was one of the first locations in the U.S. to be
developed for commercial wind power, is notorious for its unusually
high level of bird moralities. The projects in the Pass include a
large number of older, lattice tower turbines, which are believed to
pose a much greater threat to birds than modern tubular towers (in
large part because the the lattice towers provide attractive perches
for raptors). The 2004 CBD lawsuit (PDF) claimed, among other things,
that the Altamont turbines had killed 880 to 1,330 golden eagles,
hawks, owls and other protected raptors each year for the past 20
years, in violation of California Fish and Game Code provisions, the
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle
Protection Act.

The plaintiffs asserted several novel theories of law, claiming that
violations of these regulations and statutes amounted to "unfair
business practices." In an amended complaint, they also alleged that
the turbines owners were violating the "public trust" by taking
wildlife that belonged to the residents of California.

As we reported back in the winter of 2005, the Alameda County
Superior Court originally allowed the action to proceed, concluding,
among other things, that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged a
property interest in wildlife, which were held in trust by the
public. At the time, the ruling sparked a heated debate in legal
communities about the scope of the public trust doctrine, and whether
there was a private right of action to sue for damages to property
held in public trust. The court also allowed the unfair business
practices claims to proceed despite the fact that Prop. 64 had
recently amended California's Unfair Competition Law to preclude
private suites brought on behalf of the public where there was no
loss of "money or property."

In October of this year the same Alameda County court dismissed the
case after considering additional briefing by the parties (link to
text images of decision). The court considered new case law on Prop.
64, and concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue
because they had not established that they had "lost money or
property as a result of unfair competition." The court found that the
alleged damage to wildlife held in public trust did not rise to the
level of lost "money or property" as contemplated by California's
unfair business practice law. The court also rejected claims based on
the alleged destruction of public trust property, ultimately holding
that there was no private right of action to sue for such damages.
The court concluded that such claims must be brought by the State,
and not individual private parties.

A press release issued by the Center for Biological Diversity in
October indicates that the plaintiffs were considering an appeal, but
court papers do not show that an appeal has been filed.

posted by Geoff Hand, Associate Attorney at 12:00 PM

DETROIT, MI -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 12/14/2006 -- Two Michigan-based
companies, Partners GREEN and WindStor Power Co.(OTCBB: MKBY), have
signed a "Letter of Intent" containing agreed upon terms and
conditions for license of WindStor, an improved vertical axis wind
turbine. A license agreement is being prepared.

Agreement terms and conditions provide for WindStor Power to receive
a license fee of $30,000 per turbine when total installed costs are
$550,000 or more. The fee increases by $300 for every $1,000 when
total installed costs are below $550,000.

Upon signing the License Agreement, Partners GREEN will also purchase
$200,000 of WindStor Power Common Stock at $1.00/share with the right
to acquire another $1,000,000 at the same price. The right expires
six months after the Ishpeming, Michigan WindStor installation is
performance- certified by an independent engineer.

Partners GREEN grants WindStor Power the option to convert all or
part of the license fee into an equity ownership in any group of
Partners GREEN installations at the same price offered to group tax
equity investors. In exchange for this option, the investment into
WindStor Power, and license fees, WindStor Power grants Partners
GREEN exclusive marketing rights for all power purchase agreement
sales conditional on purchasing WindStor units annually.

In a separate agreement signed in October 2006, Partners GREEN agreed
to purchase the Ishpeming installation for $425,000 upon completion
and engineer certification 45 days after it is commissioned.

Gary Westerholm, Partners GREEN President, said; "We are very pleased
to add WindStor as the wind technology component in our Project
EverGREEN Schools' system to provide economic renewable energy
generation and education at / for schools. Our primary system is
complete and we will immediately begin signing power purchase
agreements with a number of schools across the country wishing to
receive our Project EverGREEN program for schools. We plan to begin
ordering groups of 50 units when the Ishpeming installation is
engineer certified."

Project EverGREEN's technology components include WindStor® by
WindStor Power Co. (OTCBB: MKBY) www.mckenziebay.com, solar by United
Solar Ovonic www.uni-solar.com, battery by Cobasys Inc.
www.cobasys.com and System Integration by Envitech Automation
www.envitech.com. The education curriculum is being developed by
Michigan GREEN www.michigangreen.org. Project & system information at
www.partnersgreen.org


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


Contact:
Partners GREEN
Sales Management
248-446-9502
781-255-0316
Email Contact
Email Contact

WindStor Power / McKenzie Bay International
Investor Relations
Richard Kaiser
800-631-8127
Email Contact

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
Michiganwindforalternativeenergy group:

When having a verbal conversation reguarding energy sources such as Wind, Solar
or Hydro which term do you use before the word Energy?

   o Alternative
   o Renewable
   o None of the above


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Michiganwindforalternativeenergy/surveys?id=211362\
3

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Howdy all, I received an interesting email from a well decorated 30
year promoter of renewable energies last night and i would like to
present a topic of discussion. First i must say I highly admire this
mans contributions to promoting alternative energies in Michigan. It
started as I emailed him about this group hoping he would drop in
occasionally for updates or assistance in question answering. I have
always used the terminology alternative energy for no reason other
than that is how i heard it when I started seeking out new sources of
energy. The following is an excerpt from one of his replies to my
email;

I don't use the term "alternative energy" so I would like it if you
change the name to "renewable energy".  Alternative energy is what I
call energy racism.  The fossil-nuke folks like it because it keep
those of us pushing for the Solar Economy looking like backwoods
hippies…   Internationally, you never see use of the
term "alternative energy".  We are not the alternative, we are the
MAIN source, always was, always will be soon.

As I thought about this I believe that i agree with his reasoning for
the dislike of the word alternative. As I was researching Information
today for a regulations project I am working on I did notice that no
Government agency's I researched used the term alternative. Then when
I went to search for current news articles they steered more toward
the term alternative than renewable. It is to late to change the name
of the group but it's never to late to change my choice of words. Any
opinions on this? I am going to create a poll out of curiosity to see
which word the majority uses. Tammy Stoner

THE FUTURE OF ENERGY IN MICHIGAN: State will keep relying on coal
It helps generate nearly 60% of electricity
BY ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER

December 11, 2006



Detroit Edison's Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant is in Frenchtown
Township. Nuclear plants also help generate Michigan electricity.
(JEFF BRUSH/Associated Press)

Michigan coal consumption
Michigan uses coal to generate nearly 60% of the electricity used in
the state annually. Here are some other facts about Michigan's coal
usage:



• The combined direct and indirect contributions of the coal industry
to Michigan's economy are more than $5 billion.



• Using more than 36 million tons, Michigan ranks eighth in coal use.



• Michigan does not produce coal.



• Michigan has 20 coal-fired power plants.






Source: The American Coal Foundation




Flipping on a light switch is usually an unconscious act for
Michiganders. But when the lights don't go on, which is what happened
Aug. 14, 2003, the darkness that ensues can be frightening.

That's why, for at least the next 24 years, Michigan will maintain
its dependence on a centuries-old source of reliable power: coal.

Coal is the source of most of the electrical power used throughout
the United States, and Michigan is no exception. It accounts for
nearly 60% of all electricity generated in the state today, and that
figure is projected to remain at, or slightly above, that level
through 2030, a recent U.S. Department of Energy report says.

The report, called the Annual Energy Outlook 2007, estimates that
coal will account for 66% of the nation's total energy supply by
2030, despite a projected sharp increase in biofuels and other
renewable energy sources. Annual coal consumption is projected to
grow from 1.13 billion tons now to 1.77 billion tons by 2030.

Yet coal processing and conversion to electricity remain dependent on
19th-Century methods.

Michigan used 36.5-million tons of coal to meet its electricity
generation needs last year. The coal, which was transported to the
state by rail, was crushed into a powder and fed into a combustion
chamber at a utility plant that connects directly to the electric
grid.

The nation's electric grid is a system of synchronized power
providers and consumers connected by more than 157,000 miles of
transmission and distribution lines and operated by multiple control
centers. In the continental United States, the grid consists of three
systems: the Eastern Interconnect, which failed during the blackout
of 2003; the Western Interconnect and the Texas Interconnect.

Few capital improvements have been made to the system since 1960.

As households and businesses prepare for winter, recent snowstorms
and power outages are a reminder that the state's electricity supply
remains vulnerable to massive blackouts, in part, because of a
reliance on coal. Michigan has no coal reserves of its own and must
rely on coal from places like West Virginia, Pennsylvania and
Kentucky to power the 20 coal-fired power plants around the state.

"We shouldn't stake Michigan's future on coal," said Mike Shriberg,
executive director of Environment Michigan, the state's largest
environmental nonprofit. "Given Michigan's projected increases in
electricity, we know they can be met most efficiently by renewable
energy and greater efficiency. We need to look at 21st-Century
technologies, not 19th-Century technologies, to meet Michigan's
future electricity needs."

To that end, Gov. Jennifer Granholm's 21st Century Energy Plan is
analyzing the state's electricity needs and formulating
recommendations on whether to build new coal plants or invest in
energy efficiency and renewable energy. In addition, Granholm has
charged Michigan Public Service Commission Chairman Peter Lark with
the responsibility of drafting a report on the issue of establishing
Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards for Michigan. The goal is to
have a state quota for renewable energy similar to other states.
Wisconsin, for instance, will require its utilities to increase their
use of renewable energy from 0.5% in 2001 to 2.2% by 2011.

Some proponents of coal agree that the integrity of the grid will
determine the future of coal use for electricity.

"There have been reports that suggest that we're paying relatively
too much attention to the availability of supply (of electricity) at
the neglect of the investment of the power transmission grid," said
Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, a
Washington, D.C., trade organization that represents mining companies
and equipment suppliers. "I would say that one of the most
underappreciated events among consumers in general has to be ...
what's happened to an old industrial fuel like coal."

Coal isn't the only source of electric generation in Michigan.
Nuclear power and natural gas also contribute, but coal remains the
most widely used energy source.

"Coal looks to have as much a future in the digital world as it had
in the manufacturing world," Popovich said.

Contact ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA at 313-222-5008 or
abodipo@....

Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.

WOW really nice photos, thanks for sharing them, How did you learn to
do all of this, Did you have a builder? or self educate? your home is
beautiful, sure wish i was this far along. Tammy

Williamsport Sun Gazette by: David Thompson Tuesday December 12, 2006



Vermont-based Laurel Hill Wind Energy Co., whose proposed wind farm
project in northern Lycoming County was shot down when the county
Zoning Hearing Board denied its application for a special exception,
will soon get its day in court.

According to Robert Charlebois, managing director of parent company
Catamount Energy Corp., of Rutland, Vt., arguments will be presented
in the courtroom of county judge Nancy Butts at 9 a.m. next Monday.

The company originally proposed building 47 388-foot-high electricity-
generating wind turbines along a seven-mile section of ridgeline in
McIntyre and Jackson townships zoned either for agriculture or
resource protection.

The company later agreed to reduced the scope of the project to 35
turbines and relocate some of them in an effort to reduce the impact
on the area.

It also agreed to a list of measured drawn up by county Planning
Commission staff that commission executive director Jerry S. Walls
said would lessen the project's impact and make it conform more to
the county zoning ordinance and the county Comprehensive Plan.

In July the board voted 3-2 to deny the exception after a hearing
that spanned nearly a year-and-a-half and included the testimony of
dozens of people.

According to the board's written decision, the project was
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and county zoning ordinance
regarding resource protection zones, and would also adversely impact
the environment and neighboring property.

The board also determined that the measures set forth by the Planning
Commission and the company were insufficient to adequately lessen
those effects.

In an appeal filed in August on behalf of the wind energy company,
attorney Thomas C. Marshall, of the law firm McNerney, Page,
Vanderlin and Hall, claimed the board committed legal errors and
based its decision on findings supported by little or no evidence.

``We think we've made a very compelling argument as to why (the
board's decision) should be overturned,'' Charlebois said Monday.

``It's out of our hands. Now it's up to the court to make that
determination,'' he said.

Section: News    Posted: 12/12/2006


  http://www.sungazette.com/news/articles.asp?articleID=12495

Howdy all & welcome Please feel free to use the group feature options
as you would see fit. The  feature options are accessible to all
members. You can find these on the far left from the group home page,
Please feel free to create or download files & photos also you can add
links of interest, as I have started doing ( if any of these are wrong
please correct or advise me to correct). I have not learned how to use
the database yet but if you know how please use it, also the polls
section of the group  I think is a great feature. Want to know how the
majority thinks of something, create a poll to find out. The calendar
can be used to mark events & important upcoming dates. This group is
here for the members use and I welcome any suggestions for use or
changes. Currently attachments are allowed to message post and will
continue to be unless this function becomes abused by spammers
pretending to be members. You may also privately email one another by
clicking on the envelope under the ID name of whom you wish to email.
These messages will not be sent to the whole group using this method,
just the individual you intended to contact. Please feel free to ask
any questions about using this group. I hope that this turns into a big
thing for communication and information regarding Michigan wind and its
future. Tammy

Howdy all this link should take you to house bill 4647, Tammy
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2005-HB-4647

House Bill 4647 sponsored by Rep. John Moolenaar passed the House on
Dec. 6 and has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.  The bill
would amend the Single Business Tax Act to provide taxpayers that own
and use a small wind turbine with a credit against the tax.  A small
wind turbine would be a wind turbine that has a maximum electrical
generating capacity of five megawatts. The credit would be equal to one-
and-one-half cents per kilowatt hour generated in the tax year.  The
credit would be available for tax years beginning after December 31,
2006 and before January 1, 2008.  A taxpayer shall apply to the Energy
Office, DLEG for approval of the credit.  Total of all credits cannot
exceed $3 million per calendar year and credits for any one taxpayer
cannot exceed $750,000 for a tax year.  The credit would not be
refundable but any excess could be carried forward to offset tax
liability in the subsequent tax year.  A taxpayer that is allowed a
credit may assign all or a portion of the credit.  A taxpayer will be
able to claim a credit against the successor tax to the single business
tax.

My name is Tammy Stoner, I am a Michigan resident that has been
learning about the potential for wind energy in Michigan for 2 years
now. I am in the process of building a home & Business that will be
off grid powered by wind and solar energy. I currently have a 100'
tower that will be going up in April 2007 for placement of a NRG # 40
wind watcher Anemometer. This will be located in Tustin MI. I have
attended numerous energy conferences and wind working group meeting
just to keep informed, updated and learn as much as i can about wind
power. I have found that as a little person just trying to learn and
self educate that i have gotten lost in the shuffle as large
companies and organizations try to establish long term guidelines and
goals for Michigan Wind. My questions have been many and the
responses have been short coming and long awaited. I along with many
others have a lot to learn and understand about wind energy. The
information is coming so fast that is is hard to keep up with it all
even for an organization or working group. I have tried to share what
information i can with other people that are interested and there are
more people with questions than i have the time or answers to help. I
hope as the reality for wind energy grows in Michigan so will the
amount of members in this group. Until there are more knowledgeable
professional members that join us for real time information and
answers I will do my best to answer what i know ( this is not much)
if I don't have the answer i will do my best to find it or link you
to someone who does. Thank you and Welcome. Tammy Stoner