I can't believe the holy grail of government telling you what to do is being held hostage by the same people that normally kowtow to their lord and master.

We all want to hope that this wind project will take, "at most", 8-15 bald eagles every year but the USFWS is quite clear that there are no models available that allow them to accurately predict take. If we were to compare this project to the notorious Altamont Pass project, for instance, we would find that the eagles use was lower, but the mortality was nearly 80 birds per year for a number of years. Over the course of time NO new eagle nests have been built and mortality numbers are down. One expert who asked not to be named said this most likely has more to do with decimation of their populations and their habitat than it does with any "mitigation". A recent wind energy project reported estimates of 3,800 avian mortalities per year - at one site. The first death to occur was that of a golden eagle.

supervon2: the MPUC and their processes for discussing the Permitting and siting of industrial wind have been evolving....to a large extent because of citizen involvement in debate about this project. Allowing citizen testimony brings a significant increase in the amount of time the MPUC Commissioners spend hearing and deliberating on a project. It has been extremely interesting and heartening to watch this evolution. There has been no kowtowing to any Lords or Masters and the MPUC Commissioners have not conducted themselves in a way that would suggest that this was their expectation. The disappointment here is not with the government holding people hostage, but is of lobbyists/corporations holding government hostage because of mandates created based on perceptions. The developer failed to inform the Commissioners that they lack site control of 46% of this project area. Discussions of permits, eagles, bats, certificates of need.....are irrelevant when a developer doesn't have a project. Why the lawyers at Fredrickson & Byron would omit that data, especially when specifically asked, is very telling. What is unknown is why they would continue to litigate for a project when they know said project has very little chance of succeeding.

The eagles,owls, bats AND humans get a reprieve. Citizens presented a list of studies and real life data of human health harmed by Low Frequency Noise when these HUGE modern turbines are forced into more highly populated rural areas. One of MN's House committee chairs, when asked to address the human health problems last month, stated, "I suffer. We all must suffer". This same legislator, who continues to promote wind, confirmed that the MN legislature had precisely ZERO scientific evidence that wind turbines would be a benefit to the environment when MN mandated them as the "cornerstone" of MN energy policy in 2007. It would be nice to see MN make policy based on reality and not on the perception based assumptions of the global climate jihadists.

Far left winger here who says its time to abandon the dream of this green energy. The benefits are greatly outweighed by the detriments. These hulking eyesores don't produce the promised output of electicity. The low frequency noise is toxic to any wildlife within miles. Taxpayers pickup most of the installation costs, like the building of roads that are able to support the cranes necessary to erect these behemouths, and never approach getting out of it what was spent. When they break down, which is often, due to weather, lightning strikes, etc., you are left with a giant inoperable hunk of metal that will remain there in eternity, because the company that sold you that windmill that contracts to repair and remove it under certain circumstances won't be there in five years. They all shut down and open up under new names every few years to avoid the costs of maintaining these money pits.

These wind farms are not going to power a city. They are not going to power an auto plant or a steel mill, an aircraft production facility. We all have to face reality and build the nuclear power plants which will be needed when the fossil fuels run out. It's the 21st century. We have to stop burning fossil fuels and also realize that wind farms are not going to power this country in the future. Nuclear power IS the future and the longer we delay in building the nuclear power plants, the more expensive it will be in the end.

Nuclear doesn't have to be seen as the option of last resort Smokey48. There has been a clean safer more efficient nuclear option all along that we have ignored. Liquid fuel nuclear reactors. LFTR for short. Liquid flouride thorium reactor. This technology would solve global warming. Solve spent fuel storage. And allow us to make liquid fuels that would burn in internal combustion engines out of atmospheric carbon and hydrogen. WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN