“Next to aesthetic impact, no aspect of wind energy creates more alarm or more debate than noise…. Wind turbines are not silent. They are audible. All wind turbines create unwanted sound, that is, noise. Some do so to a greater degree than others. And the sounds they produce—the swish of blades through the air, the whir of gears inside the transmission, and the hum of the generator—are typically foreign to rural settings where wind turbines are the most often used.”

– Paul Gipe, Wind Energy Comes of Age (New York:  John Wiley & Sons, 1995), p. 371.

“Why is sensitisation to noise and vibration important? From a public health perspective, sensitisation of individuals to noise will predictably lead to worsening individual health outcomes, especially via the well-known disease pathways associated with chronic stress, and chronic sleep deprivation.”

“The Indiana Petroleum Associa­tion, whose members feared the combination of locational conven­ience and discount prices from cost economies, lobbied the state Fire Marshall who warned of the hazards of self‑service. Effective June 1, 1930, a statewide regulation allowed only station owners or regular employees to dispense gasoline.”

“For a price premium estimated to be between three-to-five cents per gallon, the benefits of Oregon’s longstanding self-service ban are said to be less spillage, less risk of fire, and a trained person ‘to maintain a clear view of and give undivided attention to the pumping process’.”

The rise and legalization of self-service at the service station is one of the longest and most colorful episodes in the history of US oil and gas regulation. Until recently, only New Jersey (1948–) and Oregon (1951–) still had laws making it illegal to offer serve yourself gasoline and diesel.…

“This house believes that subsidizing renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”

– ECONOMIST magazine, Online debate, November 8–18, 2011

[Ed. Note: Six years ago, the prestigious Economist magazine held an on-line debate on the future of energy policy. Despite a loaded affirmative motion (above), an upset victory was achieved with 8,916 votes opposed and 8,346 in favor of the proposition. The third most votes of 92 such debates, 70,000 visits produced 448 comments. Jon Boone’s writeup of the debate is reproduced below.]

Last month, The Economist magazine conducted a two-week Oxford style online debate over the proposition “that subsidizing renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”

“Renewable” in this case is really politically correct renewables: basically wind power, with some solar and a bit of of biofuel/geothermal thrown in.…

“Today’s reserve and resource estimates should be considered a minimum, not a maximum. By the end of the forecast period, reserves could be the same or higher depending on technological developments, capital availability, public policies, and commodity price levels.”

“The implication for business decision-making and public-policy analysis is that ‘depletable’ is not an operative concept for the world oil market, as it might be for an individual well, field, or geographical section…. [T]he concept of a nonrenewable resource is a heuristic, pedagogical device—an ideal type—not a principle that entrepreneurs can turn into profits and government officials can parlay into enlightened intervention.”

This essay, published by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in the November 1999 issue of The Freeman, was subtitled, “Today’s Reserve and Resource Estimates Should Be Considered a Minimum.”…