It it’s a profitable venture, there will be venture capitalists to pay for it.

Taxpayers money should not be used to subsidize any form of energy. Withholding such funds will force companies to become more efficient and thus more profitable.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. As I said in the original article, I felt your comments and information on the impact of the wind farm on aviation were the only really credible part of the presentation. You based your information on facts and assuming those facts are correct (I do not know aviation technology at all) you made a compelling argument that the concerns about aviation issues around the windfarm were ill founded.

The arguments made by the others are hinged on 2 issues that I strongly disagree with….

1. Global Warming is man made and compels immediate action
2. It’s OK to subsidize Windfarms since Oil/coal get subsidies too….

We touched on that issue in tne meeting and as Climate Gate has clearly shown, scientists on the global warming side have been faking data for years to push their agenda. On top of that, even Green Peace admits that radical cap and trade programs that give the excuse to ramrod programs like this into reality will not have a substantive impact on carbon emissions as long as the Chinese don’t play…..and there is no indication that will happen. That is assuming that carbon emissions are an issue, which I am absolutely convinced aren’t.

2. Billions are spent subsidizing the things government thinks should happen. These are often based on short term political gains. We oppose subsidies to all energy producers. if Ivenergy wants to build a wind farm….more power to them.

But when they use large amounts of tax payers $ to do it….we are going to fight that every step of the way. It’s a waste of our money….put it towards the debt and stop now. Same goes for Oil and coal…profitable companies don’t need subsidies.

The government could do infinitely more for energy policy by allowing drilling… particularly in ANWR and allowing the free market to establish what energy resources are available. Increased energy prices at the pump and on your AEP bill are a direct impact of the policies of the federal government…that the President has said must “skyrocket” under Cap and Trade.

Our energy policy is one of many things that has our nation on a collision course with disaster…..and this Windmill issues is just one of many examples of why our nation is on a course for disaster.

Thanks for your respectful comment about the pilot on your blog. I am that pilot, and more precisely a retired International USAir Captain that keeps a hand in aviation and aerospace science. Your attendance at the meeting, demonstrated your concern for the Roanoke Regional Airport and wind energy. Good. The more citizens become involved with government, the better. After all, “We the People…” is what our founders intended.

Since your passion lies within the Tea Party, to keep things above board, understand I am a moderate, centrist person, having voted all sides of the political spectrum over my 63 years. In my opinion to value the inclusion of all and avoid the extremist zealotry of a few is a mark of citizenship. I do appreciate some viewpoints of your party, but not all. My guess is most folks from every party feel the same. No party is perfect and while I am not here for a political discussion, in the name of openness, I wanted you to know where I stand.

If it is appropriate in this venue let us leave the subject of politics and return to the subject at hand; the proposed winds farm and my profession, which is the applied science of aviation. I also wish to explain why and how I got involved with the wind farm decision.

Aviation is terribly unforgiving of any omission, error, or neglect. In my world, there is little room for opinions. Things either do, or do not meet safety standards, which are derived from a huge collaboration of scientists and engineers. Engineering and safety standards are applied science. Clearly, the more humans rely on impeccable science, the less room for opinion and the greatest chance for achievement and advancement.

Possessing a scientific degree is no guarantee of open-mindedness, or honesty. Scientists are human, and therefore experience bias. Some scientists and engineers do not always do good science, but the absolute purity of science itself is always good. The idea is to separate the opinion, agenda, and bad science of some scientists from the pure science. Otherwise unscrupulous people will pick whatever biased scientist they prefer and ignore reality. In aviation, bias and opinion can be tragic.

Likewise, dismissing all scientists because of a few unscrupulous individuals is common backward ignorance and moves us into dangerous ground, namely the mental failure of critical thinking and even denial. This is why scientists, aerospace engineers and although indirectly, even pilots ultimately rely on peer reviewed scientific papers. One biased scientist, or engineer might fool laymen, but he will not fool a body of questioning peers. Solid science looks for a body of skeptical peer-reviewed works, and consistent evidence, not the musings of a few people that fit somebody’s beliefs.

I became involved in this issue because I attended a community meeting about wind power. A presentation was made from an inexperienced and ill-informed pilot claiming his concern was not about the wind farm, but solely aviation. He claimed the project would wreak havoc on the Roanoke Regional Airport, become a danger to aviation, raise the landing minimums and divert traffic to other airports.

I realized his reasoning was based on opinion. It should have been based on terrain data, navigation, Federal Aviation Agency Certification Standards, airport approach procedures, and basic common airmanship. At first I thought he was simply a misinformed pilot, and tried to explain, but quickly realized his real and hidden agenda was to create public worry and derail the project. If this person had not tried to misinform the public, I would not be involved with the wind farm today.

I hope you understand that quite naturally, I also began to doubt many other horrible claims made that evening about wind power. I also hope you would feel the same if it were your profession someone used to misinform my neighbors and our community.

Since then, I have become more involved, read a lot, reviewed the technology, and visited wind farms. I measured sound levels, and recorded HD Digital videos. Thus far, I have discovered most of the negative claims to be as exaggerated as the airport crisis argument. Even so, let us leave that aside for another time and return to the premise of my commentary here.

The wind farm issue should be studied on a non-emotional, fact based, scientific and economic argument about what is best for our area, the nation and our world. More important, I hope you agree technical issues should be made on a reasoned, educated, scientific approach and not from any political bias. From my viewpoint, this is not a political issue.

I fully and firmly support Tea Party’s views that place great value on private enterprise and property rights. The wind farm facility would be entirely on private property and is a private enterprise.

Invenergy is clearly not a government boondoggle, unworkable fad, or disease prone demon as some have alluded. While we might argue the politics if tax breaks are a good or bad idea in a free capitalist society, it does not mean we should deny this private company the right to conduct its business on the open market any more than we should attack a coal powered company for tax breaks for better technology. Both are captives of government policy, and both must operate in their regulatory and business environment.

I am not one to take anti government conspiracy theories or emotional opinions seriously. I dislike bias and therefore find the above picture of a burning windmill a provocative attempt to instill fear. We do not stop flying, driving, or improving technologies because engines occasionally catch on fire. This nation would be in deep water if fear should stop advancement. When the inevitable problems of any technology arrive, engineers evaluate the data, then strive for improvements in design and maintenance. We call it progress.

I do note a small group of folks are looking for any and all the bad, negative information they can find or invent, while ignoring all (big word) the positives. I am more inclined to take a balanced and prudent approach fully examining both sides of this issue. If you agree with reasoned evaluation, I will do my best to remain open to your concerns and views, especially those that disagree. I learned a long time ago, that dismissing others is just plain dumb.

If you have made it all the way to this last sentence, (laughing) I earnestly thank you for your attention and concern for our airport, community, and nation.