Count me out. I am a skeptical person by nature. Any technology that needs that much subsidizing (whether it be wind, ethanol, hybrid cars or ???) raises my suspicion. This is not new technology and if it was going to work, it would be able to stand on its own by now. Add to that the liability issues (if what was posted about indemnification proves true), and my benefit-to-cost ratio just tipped the wrong way. If a company won't stand beside me in court to support their product, that is a product I want no part of. As a minimum, ask them about this issue and see what they say. Seems like a pretty good case if someone were to argue that you damaged the value or their property by allowing this tower to go up. Even if they didn't win in court, it would be a hollow victory after all the legal bills.
I don't consider myself a hypocrite as I would gladly sign up for a source of energy I believe is viable. I would gladly take their money to put radioactive waste far below my pond.
